Who created God

[Donray]

Who created God?

The intelligent design folks point to the fact that the universe is perfect universe and therefore must have been created by God.

I also understand that God is perfect.

Given these facts, who or what created God?

[arian]

Arian makes perfect sense logically.

1. Meterology explains thunder and lightning.
2. Thunder and lightning is made by Thor the Thundergod.

Noone in their right mind would even consider option number 1 would they?

Oh come on Artie, just because Meteorology can explain how thunder and lightning happen does not mean that now they have the 'claim' to or the 'patent' of thunder and lightning.

Nice story! I am not sure what you mean by the statement above. Are you saying that even though meteorologists can explain how thunder and lightning happens Thor is still the one who has the "claim" or "patent" to it and is ultimately responsible for creating it?

Someone did, .. if you 'believe' it was Thor, .. so be it. It shows your thinking. I'm sure you would look more into it before you accepted Thor, .. right?.

My point was made clear... now try to think 'outside the box', ... over some coffee and curly fries.

[Goat]

The Big bang never happened, and there is no Thor either. They are stories, ... that's all. As for the creation of the universe, it has a very obvious reason, ... well for me anyways. One is that we are debating here on who or who didn't Create it? Read my story to Artie, .. It's all about man wanting to take credit for even the universes creation... Since man can't take the credit, ... then "NO ONE WILL!" (now picture a child with hands folded) ".. There, ... Hmmphhh, ...."

There has been plenty of observational data that has been observed that indicated the 'big bang' actually happened. Please show how these observations have been falsified, or withdraw your claim.

[Artie]

Arian makes perfect sense logically.

1. Meterology explains thunder and lightning.
2. Thunder and lightning is made by Thor the Thundergod.

Noone in their right mind would even consider option number 1 would they?

Oh come on Artie, just because Meteorology can explain how thunder and lightning happen does not mean that now they have the 'claim' to or the 'patent' of thunder and lightning.

Nice story! I am not sure what you mean by the statement above. Are you saying that even though meteorologists can explain how thunder and lightning happens Thor is still the one who has the "claim" or "patent" to it and is ultimately responsible for creating it?

Someone did, .. if you 'believe' it was Thor, .. so be it. It shows your thinking. I'm sure you would look more into it before you accepted Thor, .. right?

It's not a question of accepting anything. The need to make Thor responsible for creating thunder and lightning and the need to make God responsible for creating the universe appears to be the result of a brain wired for belief. It appears to be a safety valve for people who can't cope with not having a reason or purpose or explanation for things so the brain has to compensate by inventing gods as a coping mechanism. What Christianity ultimately boils down to is: God created a universe 78 billion light years in diameter containing 30 sextillion stars just so I can spend an eternity delighting God with my company. My ego might be inflated but not that much.

[Sonclad]

Who created God?

The intelligent design folks point to the fact that the universe is perfect universe and therefore must have been created by God.

I also understand that God is perfect.

Given these facts, who or what created God?

the argument often is there must be an "uncaused cause" as otherwise it woud lead to an infinite regress.

I disagree with this on at least 2 fronts.

First, the dismissal of an infinite regress. They essentially fabricate the "uncaused cause" to get around the obvious logical problem. They seem to also have a problem with the fact infinity cant exist, although I do not.

Secondly is the "cause". I think the concept that everything has a cause it not one supported by the evidence, especially the most recent evidence that seems to keep coming out.

It' more a problem with an actual infinite regression of cause and effect... Of causation. The difficulty arises when trying to traverse an infinite series of actual events. In order to get to a point in time (today), an infinite amount of seconds must be systematically traversed, which we would never complete. We would never arrive at this point in time because we would forever be traversing previous points.

As for God's origin....only an uncaused cause could create the universe. It is widely accepted by both secular and Christian scientists that the universe had a beginning. Yet we know that: 1) whatever begins to exist has a cause; 2) the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause itself could not be part of what began to exist- it could not be part of the creation, but by necessity would be 'outside' of it. Only God fits this description - the uncaused Cause, the unmoved Mover.

[Artie]

As for God's origin....only an uncaused cause could create the universe. It is widely accepted by both secular and Christian scientists that the universe had a beginning. Yet we know that: 1) whatever begins to exist has a cause; 2) the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause itself could not be part of what began to exist- it could not be part of the creation, but by necessity would be 'outside' of it. Only God fits this description - the uncaused Cause, the unmoved Mover.

Except that "the uncaused Cause, the unmoved Mover" of course could be any of the many creation deities believed in around the world or in fact it could be any natural process we simply don't know about yet.

[Sonclad]

As for God's origin....only an uncaused cause could create the universe. It is widely accepted by both secular and Christian scientists that the universe had a beginning. Yet we know that: 1) whatever begins to exist has a cause; 2) the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause itself could not be part of what began to exist- it could not be part of the creation, but by necessity would be 'outside' of it. Only God fits this description - the uncaused Cause, the unmoved Mover.

Except that "the uncaused Cause, the unmoved Mover" of course could be any of the many creation deities believed in around the world or in fact it could be any natural process we simply don't know about yet.

And this is where Theology comes into play. We can logically deduce that not all religious beliefs are true; Christianity is mutually exclusive in its claims about God, so one must examine various beliefs and compare/contrast them. I would expect that the author of creation would leave behind a 'fingerprint' or 'signiture' of some sort for the human race who has a propensity for asking such questions. The Bible claims to be exactly that - God's story which tells us about Him and how He came to rescue His creation from the peril that it finds itself. It explains the nature of God and much, much more. Is it true? That's for each of us to decide, but I would expect certain things from it if it were really authored by God and not mere men. 1) I would expect an omniscient being to know the future and be able to reveal it with 100% accuracy. 2) I would expect a unifying message throughout the entire 66 books, written by 40+ men. 3) I would expect history and archeology to corroborate the book. 4) I would expect it to address the 'big questions' of life, like how we got here, life and death and why we experience evil in the world. 5) I would expect that it would be able to change lives if it is true

[Artie]

The Bible claims to be exactly that - God's story which tells us about Him and how He came to rescue His creation from the peril that it finds itself. It explains the nature of God and much, much more. Is it true? That's for each of us to decide, but I would expect certain things from it if it were really authored by God and not mere men. 1) I would expect an omniscient being to know the future and be able to reveal it with 100% accuracy.

Exactly. And if He was able to know the future He would never have put Himself in a situation where He would have to drown almost every animal and human on the planet would He?

2) I would expect a unifying message throughout the entire 66 books, written by 40+ men.

Exactly. Not six different Bibles containing anywhere from 24 to 81 books.

3) I would expect history and archeology to corroborate the book.

But there are many books written in that time period also corroborated by history and archeology there's nothing particularly divine about that.

4) I would expect it to address the 'big questions' of life, like how we got here, life and death and why we experience evil in the world.

But there are also many other other books addressing the same questions there's nothing particularly divine about that.

5) I would expect that it would be able to change lives if it is true

But there are many books claimed to be life changing. Have you seen Oprah?

[Sonclad]

1) I would expect an omniscient being to know the future and be able to reveal it with 100% accuracy.

Exactly. And if He was able to know the future He would never have put Himself in a situation where He would have to drown almost every animal and human on the planet would He?

. Not necessarily. To suggest that an omniscient being would choose to do what you or I might choose, and because He didn't act in the same manner, is rather arrogant. We are not omniscient, so how can we see this from God's perspective?

2) I would expect a unifying message throughout the entire 66 books, written by 40+ men.

Exactly. Not six different Bibles containing anywhere from 24 to 81 books.

What do you mean when you say there are 24 to 81 books and 6 different Bibles?

3) I would expect history and archeology to corroborate the book.

But there are many books written in that time period also corroborated by history and archeology there's nothing particularly divine about that.

examples? What I am referring to is that reality as discovered through archeological findings should not oppose a book that supposedly God authored. If we found archeological evidence that clearly refuted claims in the Bible, then that would be a red flag to me about the authorship not being divine. Would you agree?

4) I would expect it to address the 'big questions' of life, like how we got here, life and death and why we experience evil in the world.

But there are also many other other books addressing the same questions there's nothing particularly divine about that.

. Again, this is an expectation I would have of a divinely authored book. That isn't to say that every book that lays claim to answer the big questions of life is automatically divinely authored; it must satisfy the other criteria as well and the answers to the big questions must be an accurate reflection of reality. The Hindu's Bhagavad-gita is such a case - it addresses good/evil by saying reality is an illusion (Maya) and there is basically no difference between the two, yet this does not adequately reflect what we experience in reality.

5) I would expect that it would be able to change lives if it is true

But there are many books claimed to be life changing. Have you seen Oprah?

. Examples? Again, this criteria does not exist by itself, but I would expect a divinely authored book to meet ALL these criteria. I do not believe you are suggesting that a book written by Oprah does that are you?

[Artie]

Sonclad

I'll just answer your latest post here to avoid a plethora of quotes.

1. "To suggest that an omniscient being would choose to do what you or I might choose, and because He didn't act in the same manner, is rather arrogant. We are not omniscient, so how can we see this from God's perspective?"

You aren't saying that there are circumstances where the drowning of practically every animal and human on the planet is justified do you? From any perspective? And that He simply went ahead knowing beforehand what would happen? By saying that you have already stated that the normal standards of logic and reason and morals don't apply to God or by implication to you. This is not a personal derogatory statement. I'm saying it because any further arguments from me or others based on human logic and reason and morals have to be formulated with this in mind.

2. "What do you mean when you say there are 24 to 81 books and 6 different Bibles?"

http://bessel.org/bibles.htm

3. "If we found archeological evidence that clearly refuted claims in the Bible, then that would be a red flag to me about the authorship not being divine. Would you agree?" Well, first you would have to pick which one of the six Bibles in point 2 actually is the one with the divine authorship, then pick the correct translation and then go through that one and check.

4. "The Hindu's Bhagavad-gita is such a case - it addresses good/evil by saying reality is an illusion (Maya) and there is basically no difference between the two, yet this does not adequately reflect what we experience in reality." In Western reality. According to the Wolfram Alpha search engine there seems to be about 820 million Hindus in the world so it seems to explain pretty adequately for them what they experience in their reality. I don't see how their reality is any less real than ours just because we happened to be born in a different country.

5. Example of a life changing book might for instance be http://www.oprah.com/oprahsbookclub/A-N ... e-Awakened

[Sonclad]

Sonclad

I'll just answer your latest post here to avoid a plethora of quotes.

1. "To suggest that an omniscient being would choose to do what you or I might choose, and because He didn't act in the same manner, is rather arrogant. We are not omniscient, so how can we see this from God's perspective?"

You aren't saying that there are circumstances where the drowning of practically every animal and human on the planet is justified do you? From any perspective? And that He simply went ahead knowing beforehand what would happen? By saying that you have already stated that the normal standards of logic and reason and morals don't apply to God or by implication to you. This is not a personal derogatory statement. I'm saying it because any further arguments from me or others based on human logic and reason and morals have to be formulated with this in mind.

Yes, I am saying exactly that... There are circumstances whereby the flood of Noah is completely justified and the right thing to do.

2. "What do you mean when you say there are 24 to 81 books and 6 different Bibles?"

http://bessel.org/bibles.htm

. This is a huge topic unto itself... Textual transmission and the canonization of scripture. Scholars have tackled this topic at length, having devoted years to studying it, but not within the space that I have here. I will merely point out that of the 66 books, we have a 99.8% contextual accuracy with discrepencies between the numerous Greek manuscripts for the NT not altering the meaning. Sorry, but I cannot possibly go into the depth necessary to do this topic justice.

3. "If we found archeological evidence that clearly refuted claims in the Bible, then that would be a red flag to me about the authorship not being divine. Would you agree?" Well, first you would have to pick which one of the six Bibles in point 2 actually is the one with the divine authorship, then pick the correct translation and then go through that one and check.

. No, that would be to assume what you are trying to prove. Pick any one of the six - if there's a conflict in this regard, it is not divinely authored. Also, you'd have to learn more about textual transmission as the translation process is a one step process from the Greek to whatever language. The meaning remains in-tact. Any translation will provide an adequate point of reference with respect to this criteria.

4. "The Hindu's Bhagavad-gita is such a case - it addresses good/evil by saying reality is an illusion (Maya) and there is basically no difference between the two, yet this does not adequately reflect what we experience in reality." In Western reality. According to the Wolfram Alpha search engine there seems to be about 820 million Hindus in the world so it seems to explain pretty adequately for them what they experience in their reality. I don't see how their reality is any less real than ours just because we happened to be born in a different country.

. I don't think you're understanding. Reality is not a relativistic experience. To claim reality is an illusion is self refuting. How would one know reality is an illusion? Even in India, people look before crossing the street.

5. Example of a life changing book might for instance be http://www.oprah.com/oprahsbookclub/A-N ... e-Awakened

. Yet, it does not meet the other criteria of divine authorship.