What created God?

[Magicjax]

I know this point is made in many discussions. But I wanted to start a subject on this concept itself. Not to be used to "Make a point" as the statement is usually used. But to actually ask how one who claims that "Everything needs a creator therefore there must be a god" argument. When someone makes this statement or argument I truly want to know how they answer the question that always fallows this statement which of course is:

"Ok, if everything needs a creator and that proves god exists. Then who created God?"

I just can't wrap my head around this line of thinking and would like anyone who really believes that because things exist it means "Someone" had to have created it. Then the never ending questions that fallow that line of thinking such as "If that's true then someone had to have created god, and someone had to have created the one that created god, etc...

I know some of you are going to jump on me because you'll say, "I'm just another atheist trying to make Christians look wrong". That's not actually what I'm doing here. I really want to know how this really works out in your way of thinking if you do feel this way. In my voyage to realizing I don't believe in god. This was one of the strongest thoughts that convinced me that I don't believe the creationist view. This "Everything has to have a creator" argument that leads to the infinite and unanswerable questions that fallow that statement is one of the things that really showed to me that something is illogical with this way of thinking.

[+Paranoid Android]

In our physical world, everything needs to come from something. I didn't just pop here by magic. I am the result of the DNA mix between my father and my mother. And they exist because their parents share DNA, and their parents parents... and so it goes on, all the way back to single-celled organisms. These organisms came to exist because the environment was right for it. The environment also existed to bring this state about and goes all the way back to..... what? What started the origin of our universe? It is not an eternal universe, so how did it get here?

Theists argue "God". However, the next question - "ok, so what created God" is an irrelevant question. The idea that something must come from something only applies to our physical world. The supernatural world does not need to follow the same rule. Therefore it need not be asked as to who or what created God. If God were physical, it would be a logical question to ask, but if God is not physical, it is irrelevant. A god who is outside of our physical world can easily be eternal, not having a creator.

Know what I mean?

[+Sherapy]

In our physical world, everything needs to come from something. I didn't just pop here by magic. I am the result of the DNA mix between my father and my mother. And they exist because their parents share DNA, and their parents parents... and so it goes on, all the way back to single-celled organisms. These organisms came to exist because the environment was right for it. The environment also existed to bring this state about and goes all the way back to..... what? What started the origin of our universe? It is not an eternal universe, so how did it get here?

Theists argue "God". However, the next question - "ok, so what created God" is an irrelevant question. The idea that something must come from something only applies to our physical world. The supernatural world does not need to follow the same rule. Therefore it need not be asked as to who or what created God. If God were physical, it would be a logical question to ask, but if God is not physical, it is irrelevant. A god who is outside of our physical world can easily be eternal, not having a creator.

Know what I mean?

Robbie, Infinite regress is not irrelevant IMO it is a major flaw in the Teleological argument.

It is circular logic. And an excellent question by MJax, and one I have no answer for.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

In brief the answer is symmetry. Symmetry exerts a very strong force on the physical universe.

Nothingness is very symetrical.

Symmetries "are made to be broken" "Quantum chromodynamics tells us that nothingness is a "precarious state of affairs." Frank Wilczek, physicist from MIT explains, "you can form a state that has no quarks and anti quarks in it, and its totally unstable. It spontaneously begins producing quark -anti quark pairs."

Thus, according to quantum theory, there is no state of emptiness. So, according to Wilczeck, there is no fundamental barrier between nothingness and a universe full of matter. "Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally."

The natural extension of this is that nothingness can't actually exist.

Think about this in religius terms, and you have the answer to the above question.

God spontaneously generated

Edited February 29, 2012 by Mr Walker

[Magicjax]

In brief the answer is symmetry. Symmetry exerts a very strong force on the physical universe.

Nothingness is very symetrical.

Symmeties "are made to be broken" Quantum chromodynamics tells us that nothingness is a "precarious state of affairs." Frank Wilczek, physicist from MIT explains, 'you can form a statee that has no quarks and anti quarks in it, and its totally unstable. It spontaneously begins producing quark -anti quark pairs.

Thus according to quantum theory, there is no state of emptiness. So, according to Wilczeck, there is no fundamanetl barrier between nothingness and a universe full of matter. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally." The natural extensin of this is that nothingness cant actually exist.

Think about this in religius terms, and you have the answer to the above question.

God spontaneously generated

All fine and dandy. But still, who created "the creator"? Going by the logic you expressed, god can't exist. Think about it.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Magicjax

[+Paranoid Android]

Robbie, Infinite regress is not irrelevant IMO it is a major flaw in the Teleological argument.

It is circular logic. And an excellent question by MJax, and one I have no answer for.

Teleology has little to do with the discussion (nor does Infinite Regression, actually). Science cannot measure the non-physical, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that the question about "who/what created God" becomes irrelevant when applied to a non-physical entity.

I know you were just stating your opinion. As I am also stating my opinion. And I think the concept of a non-physical creator sidesteps the entire need to ask a question as to what created the creator. The physical world, a different story....

~ PA

[eight bits]

"I'm just another atheist trying to make Christians look wrong". That's not actually what I'm doing here. I really want to know how this really works out in your way of thinking if you do feel this way.

OK, fine, taking those statements at face value, you want to know what the position of some specific group of your opponents actually is.

Among Christians, and you did mention Christians specifically, there are two camps. There is the solely Bible-believing minority, a subsatntial and vocal minority, but a minority all the same, of which PA is a fine and able representative. Let him speak for them.

The vast majority of Christians, however, the Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxies, the largest Protestant denomination, and some other Protestants as well, are not solely Bible-based. In the Anglican formula, the foundations of belief are Scripture, Reason and Tradition. The latter is the non-canonical literature, especially early material, read critically.

So, a living majoritarian Christian addresses your question informed by millennia of scholarship which, being unbiblical, you may not hear about from some minoritarians. The majoritarian claim is that God is the creator of all things in time and space, and of all things except himself outside of time and space. In short, God is the creator of all things other than himself. The formula is also sometimes rendered "... of all things which had a beginning." So,

This "Everything has to have a creator" argument that leads to the infinite and unanswerable questions that fallow that statement is one of the things that really showed to me that something is illogical with this way of thinking.

You find yourself in agreement with the overwhemling majority of living Christian churches. Only things that have a beginning can have a creator. Duh. That there is a category of "thing" which is beginningless is a much older idea than Christianity. If you felt like it, you could look into notions of the "ground of being," an impersonal conception of an eternality which underlies the temporal.

Much as the United States Constitution combines two distinct roles, head of state and head of government, into the single office of President, Abrahamic theology combines two extranatural roles, ground of being and actor upon the ground of being, into a single divine being.

I would also insert my usual caution here, that the purpose of the majoritarian Christian claim is not to explain the natural world, but to explain its Creator. Specifically, the questions addressed are the origins of "natural theology" (what can be inferred about God apart from revelation - the question that doesn't come up in findamentalist sola scriptura religion) and why natural beings like ourselves should ever attend to the supernatural at all.

The majority of Christians did not take Jesus' advice to enter the Kingdom of God as if they were a child. Or maybe, they just listened to real, living children's questions, like "If God made everything, then who made God?" And they have made grown-up answers. Often, that answer is to phrase the question more carefully.

That's good advice in other situations, too. Another bit of good advice is to understand that if you figured something out, then so have most of your opponents.

[Mr Walker]

All fine and dandy. But still, who created "the creator"? Going by the logic you expressed, god can't exist. Think about it.

Read the post carefully. According to the logic, (and the theoretical science) outlined, 'god' must exist. And god's "prime cause" is self or spontaneous creation.

It is a/the state of nothingness which is logically and scientifically impossible to sustain.

In this scenario, "god" is a spontaneously generated/evolved sapient entity which evolved by natural causation from nothingness. No prior sapient or intelligent design is necessary. The theory explains why this is not only possible, but probably inevitable.

[woopypooky]

nothing = something

to have something is to have nothing.

fat is thin

dark is light

truth is lies

understand this and half your problems are gone.

and dont worry about God.

Edited February 29, 2012 by woopypooky

[Mr Walker]

nothing = something

to have something = to have nothing.

fat = thin

dark = light

truth = lies

understand this and half your problems are gone.

and dont worry about God.

Somehow, it seems to me that; if you felt you could make sense of that, ALL your problems would be gone.

[woopypooky]

Somehow, it seems to me that; if you felt you could make sense of that, ALL your problems would be gone.

i could make sense of it,when i really sit down and think

but to keep making sense of it 24/7/365 is another matter.

[M.A.D CapeBretoner]

I know this point is made in many discussions. But I wanted to start a subject on this concept itself. Not to be used to "Make a point" as the statement is usually used. But to actually ask how one who claims that "Everything needs a creator therefore there must be a god" argument. When someone makes this statement or argument I truly want to know how they answer the question that always fallows this statement which of course is:

"Ok, if everything needs a creator and that proves god exists. Then who created God?"

I just can't wrap my head around this line of thinking and would like anyone who really believes that because things exist it means "Someone" had to have created it. Then the never ending questions that fallow that line of thinking such as "If that's true then someone had to have created god, and someone had to have created the one that created god, etc...

I know some of you are going to jump on me because you'll say, "I'm just another atheist trying to make Christians look wrong". That's not actually what I'm doing here. I really want to know how this really works out in your way of thinking if you do feel this way. In my voyage to realizing I don't believe in god. This was one of the strongest thoughts that convinced me that I don't believe the creationist view. This "Everything has to have a creator" argument that leads to the infinite and unanswerable questions that fallow that statement is one of the things that really showed to me that something is illogical with this way of thinking.

How about find your true self and once there you would be in a better position to understand that which is God.

[M.A.D CapeBretoner]

To some what explaine what I've been saying here.

I've found something that Thomas had heard our Lord say in his witnessing, If those who lead you say ' God's Kingdom's in Heaven,' then the birds will fly there first. If they say 'It's in the sea,' the fish will swim there first. For God's Kingdom dwells in your heart and all around you; when you know your Self you too shall be known! You'll be aware that you're the sons and daughters of our living Father. But if you fail to know your own Self you're in hardship and are that hardship."

[M.A.D CapeBretoner]

And here is another which seem to me to be quwyte fitting His disciples asked, "On which day will you make yourself known to us?"

Lord Jesus replied, "When you rid yourselves of guilt and shame and tear off your old rags and trample them beneath your feet like children.

Then you'll see the Son of He who is the living God, and you'll never need fear again.

I'll end with this one which kinda drives the point home "He who understands all but lacks Self Knowledge lacks all.

May the Lord have peace in you.

[+Paranoid Android]

OK, fine, taking those statements at face value, you want to know what the position of some specific group of your opponents actually is.

Among Christians, and you did mention Christians specifically, there are two camps. There is the solely Bible-believing minority, a subsatntial and vocal minority, but a minority all the same, of which PA is a fine and able representative. Let him speak for them.

G'day 8bits,

I must say I found this comment to be quite intriguing. Simply because the answer I presented had nothing to do with the Bible, and could be applied to any form of eternal non-physical entity, not just the Bible-God.

However, I found the rest of your post quite interesting.

[Allyria]

In brief the answer is symmetry. Symmetry exerts a very strong force on the physical universe.

Nothingness is very symetrical.

Symmetries "are made to be broken" "Quantum chromodynamics tells us that nothingness is a "precarious state of affairs." Frank Wilczek, physicist from MIT explains, "you can form a state that has no quarks and anti quarks in it, and its totally unstable. It spontaneously begins producing quark -anti quark pairs."

Thus, according to quantum theory, there is no state of emptiness. So, according to Wilczeck, there is no fundamental barrier between nothingness and a universe full of matter. "Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally."

The natural extension of this is that nothingness can't actually exist.

Think about this in religius terms, and you have the answer to the above question.

God spontaneously generated

If God spontaneously generated, then there is no reason why life couldn't have done so as well, which makes the idea of a Creator redundant.

[mfrmboy]

The magic man in the sky was created by man himself.

[+Sherapy]

Teleology has little to do with the discussion (nor does Infinite Regression, actually). Science cannot measure the non-physical, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that the question about "who/what created God" becomes irrelevant when applied to a non-physical entity.

I know you were just stating your opinion. As I am also stating my opinion. And I think the concept of a non-physical creator sidesteps the entire need to ask a question as to what created the creator. The physical world, a different story....

~ PA

Your argument is fair, as far as I am concerned. After all the OP is asking for Christian perspectives.

What I'd ask next is how are you establishing/supporting a "supernatural" realm? By what standards? It really is just a question posed to you for your insight.

I haven't seen Cassea on this thread, but in the event she comes on I'd ask her the same thing.

I do not ask to counter your POV, just out of an interest in how you rectify the Teleological argument ( understanding it is just my way of framing an understanding.)

Which you do understand. LOL

Edited February 29, 2012 by Sherapy

[Rlyeh]

When it comes to the non-physical, anything goes. Thats the problem when you can't measure or verify a statement or explanation.

[eight bits]

Howdy, PA (Howdy, Sheri, too)

First, I hope that you realize that my comments about your post were sincere. I think you are among the most articulate exponents of the Bible-believing Christian perspective who posts here. I also appreciate and thank you for your kind words about my post.

Simply because the answer I presented had nothing to do with the Bible, and could be applied to any form of eternal non-physical entity, not just the Bible-God.

Perhaps, but then that recalls one of the classical responses to the Teleological Argument. Even if I grant the whole argument, root and branch, and accept that there was an Intelligent and Purposeful First Cause, it wouldn't follow that that First Cause was the God of the Bible, or even the creator of our world (in the old sense of physical universe, not just our planet).

You did seem (to me, anyway) to locate the First Cause at the beginning of our world, and not, say, before the creation of a demi-urge who would go on to create our world within some other begun framework which the demi-urge inhabits. That coincidence of a First Cause with our own Creator is the peculiarly Biblical picture.

In particular, unless non-Biblical possibilities were eliminated, then the topic question would surely be a relevant question, even if the supernatural character of our Creator were granted.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I'm pretty sure god was created by His noodly appendage.

[+Paranoid Android]

What I'd ask next is how are you establishing/supporting a "supernatural" realm? By what standards? It really is just a question posed to you for your insight.

I think "supernatural" is a loaded term, which if you notice in later posts is why I changed to "non-physical world" rather than the physical world. Nevertheless, the question still stands. I am establishing a hypothesis that a non-physical realm exists. It has no scientific basis (obviously) but it is something I have experienced and therefore incorporate into my hypothesis.

[willowdreams]

I know this point is made in many discussions. But I wanted to start a subject on this concept itself. Not to be used to "Make a point" as the statement is usually used. But to actually ask how one who claims that "Everything needs a creator therefore there must be a god" argument. When someone makes this statement or argument I truly want to know how they answer the question that always fallows this statement which of course is:

"Ok, if everything needs a creator and that proves god exists. Then who created God?"

I just can't wrap my head around this line of thinking and would like anyone who really believes that because things exist it means "Someone" had to have created it. Then the never ending questions that fallow that line of thinking such as "If that's true then someone had to have created god, and someone had to have created the one that created god, etc...

I know some of you are going to jump on me because you'll say, "I'm just another atheist trying to make Christians look wrong". That's not actually what I'm doing here. I really want to know how this really works out in your way of thinking if you do feel this way. In my voyage to realizing I don't believe in god. This was one of the strongest thoughts that convinced me that I don't believe the creationist view. This "Everything has to have a creator" argument that leads to the infinite and unanswerable questions that fallow that statement is one of the things that really showed to me that something is illogical with this way of thinking.

For me it is almost of the same coin, I either have faith that god just 'was' with zero proof of anything pointing to god, or i have faith that something came from nothing.. which for me is easier because i see people.. scientist et et, trying to find proof of the 'beginning' one single solitary step at a time, and i understand that the answers may not be found in my lifetime, but at least.. there is a physical way to look for proof of the beginning of the world/universe then proof of an invisible deity that never speaks out loud, shows visibility or shows any sign in any way that he/she exists.

[Mr Walker]

If God spontaneously generated, then there is no reason why life couldn't have done so as well, which makes the idea of a Creator redundant.

Well, of course. i am an evolutionary christian with a personal relationship with a real and powerful god. Such a god didn't create the universe (although it might well have significantly shaped local parts of it) but is itself an evolutioary product of the universe. On the other hand, as an earlier evolutioary product with a long period of evolutionary progress, and a long time frame since evolving sapience, it does possess an integration with the universe that gives it, what appear to us as, godlike powers and functions. My point was exactly as you state, that god spontaneuolsy generated . That does not, either negate the presence of god, or mean it cannot be a powerful creative figure in the universe.

For example, such an entity (just like humans, driven by curiosity, creativity, and a desire to shape its universe) might have done much to influence later evolution of interplanetary species, terraforming to promote evoloutionary growth,, and the growth, seeding, and nurturing of sapience, in the universe.

Should we survive our gestation period on earth, then one day in the not too distant future it is inevitable that we will do all these things, as well. First close to "home", and then spiralling out through the galaxy and the universe, as our evolving technologies and capabilities allow us to.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Mr Walker

[sutemi]

When it comes to the non-physical, anything goes. Thats the problem when you can't measure or verify a statement or explanation.

Yeah you’re right that Quantum Physics thing, its making a jack ass out of Logic isn’t it. And Light! what right has it to be a particle one second and a wave the next, now that’s just not playing fair.