Who created God?
Moderator: Moderators
Who created God?
Post #1I seen this question many times so I decided to start thread on it. Some people have asked the question "If their is a God, who created him and how has he always existed?" Anyone?
So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
Romans 15:19
Romans 15:19
-
Angry McFurious
- Student
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:24 pm
Post #31
Illyricum wrote:If the universe has always existed, then why can't it be possible that God has always existed?cattious wrote:If God has always existed, then why can't it be possible that the universe always existed?
Right, so if the universe has to have had a beginning, correct? But God has always existed because he's not a thing, he's God. I mean, the way I see it, doesn't it make more sense for a deity to have always existed then for the universe to?Everything has to have a beginning; if it didn't have a beginning, it has always been. and that just doesn't make sense.
Thinking in the flesh will get you no where! We are thinking about something that time does not contain. God has no meaning of time.
Post #32
Then how do you propose to know such intimate facts about this “God”?Thinking in the flesh will get you no where! We are thinking about something that time does not contain. God has no meaning of time.
Weeeeeell, not disagreeing from what I remember. He talks about the theory of imaginary time. He says that our concept of time doesn’t have much meaning at the instance of the big bang (if I remember correct) and “before” the big bang, whatever that is meant to mean. He talks about the universe being effectively “self contained”.Didn't Stephen Hawking disagree with the big bang theory, coming out with a statement in A Brief History of Time that the Universe never had a past, never had a future -- it just is?
Just a thought -- maybe similarly, we can say the same of God. He was never created. He just is. (Although Stephen Hawking himself believes that God doesn't exist).
Sure. But then why do Christians try to put forward a theory that God created the world?
These circular arguments can be summed up by this – if one needs to explain the existence of this big and spectacular world with something even bigger and more spectacular, then they are really not getting very far.
Post #33
The question, "Who created God?" usually comes up during discussions of the cosmological argument for God's existence. I'm new here so I presume that the cosmological argument has been extensively discussed elsewhere, and it might even have been the source of this particular thread, but in any case, here is a brief overview of the argument and its relevance to this thread:
Believer: Something had to have created the universe (the universe couldn't have created itself), and the best candidate for that something is God. Of course, this doesn't prove that God exists, but it shows that God's existence is probable and thus justifies theistic belief.
Skeptic: What created God?
Believer: God is eternal and therefore needs no creator. He may be timeless, existing outside of time, or perhaps he is not timeless, but in any case, he is eternal in some sense, and so he has simply always existed.
Skeptic: If it's possible that God is eternal, then it is also possible that the universe is eternal. Therefore, it is possible that the universe needs no creator, and so now we are left with no reason to believe in God in the first place.
Believer: But the universe is not eternal. We know from science that it had a beginning. It started with the big bang.
Skeptic: The big bang describes the beginning of the universe as we know it, the observable universe, if you will. Yet this does not rule out the possibility that our universe and the big bang comprise only a tiny piece of physical reality. All of physical reality may be infinite and eternal. No need to bring God into the picture.
Believer: But you have absolutely no evidence for that hypothesis! Of course, it may be true, but it is merely a conjecture, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe it.
Skeptic: You're right! There is no evidence for my hypothesis and no reason to accept it. But the same could be said of your God hypothesis. At this point in our discussion, the God hypothesis is no more than conjecture. Our universe may owe its existence to some sort of eternally existing larger scale physical reality, or it may owe its existence to some sort of eternally existing God. But why should we favor your hypothesis over mine? The rational thing to do at this point is to admit that we don't know and remain agnostic.
Believer: Okay, okay, let's assume that your hypothesis is right, that our universe is just one small piece of some sort of infinite and eternal physical reality. The question arises, "Why does this eternal physical reality exist at all?" In other words, why is there something rather than nothing? Why isn't there (and hasn't there always been) just nothing? The only way to solve this problem satisfactorily is to conclude that ultimately there exists a God (perhaps timeless) that said, "Let there be an eternally existing physical reality." Otherwise, we have no explanation why anything exists at all. Belief in God is justified.
Skeptic: The question why anything exists at all is a good one, and I admit I have no answer. But your proposed solution by appealing to God is anything but satisfactory! God merely adds one more step to the sequence of events and gets us no closer to an answer. Indeed, we can still ask why anything exists at all, including God. God may account for physical reality's existence, but what accounts for God's existence? Is it just dumb luck that God happened to exist to create physical reality? If so, then the God hypothesis only complicates matters by adding another link in the chain and doesn't solve anything. Perhaps it's just dumb luck that physical reality happened to exist. This latter view is simpler and thus more rational.
Okay, enough with this dialogue.
Question for skeptics: Why does anything exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing?
Question for believers: Why does God exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing?
Believer: Something had to have created the universe (the universe couldn't have created itself), and the best candidate for that something is God. Of course, this doesn't prove that God exists, but it shows that God's existence is probable and thus justifies theistic belief.
Skeptic: What created God?
Believer: God is eternal and therefore needs no creator. He may be timeless, existing outside of time, or perhaps he is not timeless, but in any case, he is eternal in some sense, and so he has simply always existed.
Skeptic: If it's possible that God is eternal, then it is also possible that the universe is eternal. Therefore, it is possible that the universe needs no creator, and so now we are left with no reason to believe in God in the first place.
Believer: But the universe is not eternal. We know from science that it had a beginning. It started with the big bang.
Skeptic: The big bang describes the beginning of the universe as we know it, the observable universe, if you will. Yet this does not rule out the possibility that our universe and the big bang comprise only a tiny piece of physical reality. All of physical reality may be infinite and eternal. No need to bring God into the picture.
Believer: But you have absolutely no evidence for that hypothesis! Of course, it may be true, but it is merely a conjecture, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe it.
Skeptic: You're right! There is no evidence for my hypothesis and no reason to accept it. But the same could be said of your God hypothesis. At this point in our discussion, the God hypothesis is no more than conjecture. Our universe may owe its existence to some sort of eternally existing larger scale physical reality, or it may owe its existence to some sort of eternally existing God. But why should we favor your hypothesis over mine? The rational thing to do at this point is to admit that we don't know and remain agnostic.
Believer: Okay, okay, let's assume that your hypothesis is right, that our universe is just one small piece of some sort of infinite and eternal physical reality. The question arises, "Why does this eternal physical reality exist at all?" In other words, why is there something rather than nothing? Why isn't there (and hasn't there always been) just nothing? The only way to solve this problem satisfactorily is to conclude that ultimately there exists a God (perhaps timeless) that said, "Let there be an eternally existing physical reality." Otherwise, we have no explanation why anything exists at all. Belief in God is justified.
Skeptic: The question why anything exists at all is a good one, and I admit I have no answer. But your proposed solution by appealing to God is anything but satisfactory! God merely adds one more step to the sequence of events and gets us no closer to an answer. Indeed, we can still ask why anything exists at all, including God. God may account for physical reality's existence, but what accounts for God's existence? Is it just dumb luck that God happened to exist to create physical reality? If so, then the God hypothesis only complicates matters by adding another link in the chain and doesn't solve anything. Perhaps it's just dumb luck that physical reality happened to exist. This latter view is simpler and thus more rational.
Okay, enough with this dialogue.
Question for skeptics: Why does anything exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing?
Question for believers: Why does God exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing?
Post #34
It is impossible to Prove or Disprove the Existence of a god or Gods.
The main Question is who Formed the matter that created earth and the other planets and all the solar systems and galaxes.
To me, The toughed of a God, is just Something People use To Exsplane The un exsplanable.
The main Question is who Formed the matter that created earth and the other planets and all the solar systems and galaxes.
To me, The toughed of a God, is just Something People use To Exsplane The un exsplanable.
Post #35
I am not a believer, and I think neither of these questions deserves an answer. The question of "why" implies a value judgment about what reason could possibly exist for all these things to happen. In neither case am I, not being either a representative of a quanta nor a deity, qualified to make a statement about it. There is conjecture, and there are interesting games we can play in order to try and guess at answers, but in the end it doesn't really matter so such a lower being as I. Why do we exist? Because here we are. That's about as much as we can account for.twrobson wrote:Question for skeptics: Why does anything exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing?
Question for believers: Why does God exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing?
Post #36
The question tends to imply the subject is not only the universe, but the universe ‘in its current configuration’.Question for skeptics: Why does anything exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing?
The Anthropic Principal seems to be a fairly profound insight when thinking of issues like this. Why does this earth and universe go to all the bother of existing in its current configuration? Well, there were periods when the universe didn’t seem anything like what we know it to be - it was desolate and unable to support intelligent life. Therefore, unsurprisingly, there were no intelligent being to reflect on the status of the universe and ask “why is there this universe in its current configuration?”
Its interesting also that cosmologists like Stephen H tend to say that the big bang, exploding into matter and antimatter, really doesn’t seem that surprising nowadays. It may very well be inherent in the nature of the universe at that point in “time”.
Post #37
stephen hawking also talks about imaginary time. he says that this time is at right angles to real time and that it has no beginning and no end; does this really conflict with the idea of god? does there really have to be a beginning for either god or the universe?
Post #38
God exists outside that which He has created. How do we discuss non-time, non-space and absolute existances outside of both? Language is natually limited to bounded concepts. We simply have no words with which to discuss beyond those boundries.
So, where does that leave us in determining if there is a God? No problem! The difficulty we have is in externalizing our search. God exists and is attainable only individually and within. (closer than our breath) When we finally get so frustrated in talking about God, that we are silent in our search, we will begin to hear that small still voice within.
Bro Dave
So, where does that leave us in determining if there is a God? No problem! The difficulty we have is in externalizing our search. God exists and is attainable only individually and within. (closer than our breath) When we finally get so frustrated in talking about God, that we are silent in our search, we will begin to hear that small still voice within.
Bro Dave
Post #39
I would like to elaborate on what Bro Dave was saying.
God exists outside of time. He is not bound by it, so naturally, He could have always existed. Since the universe IS bound by time, it is logical to say that the universe could have had a beginning, whereas God did not.
God exists outside of time. He is not bound by it, so naturally, He could have always existed. Since the universe IS bound by time, it is logical to say that the universe could have had a beginning, whereas God did not.
Post #40
Hi Amadaus,Amadeus wrote:I would like to elaborate on what Bro Dave was saying.
God exists outside of time. He is not bound by it, so naturally, He could have always existed. Since the universe IS bound by time, it is logical to say that the universe could have had a beginning, whereas God did not.
I wanted to expand on your good point a bit as well as BroDave's.
"REALITY, as comprehended by finite beings, is partial, relative, and shadowy. The maximum Deity reality fully comprehensible by evolutionary finite creatures is embraced within the Supreme Being. Nevertheless there are antecedent and eternal realities, superfinite realities, which are ancestral to this Supreme Deity of evolutionary time-space creatures. In attempting to portray the origin and nature of universal reality, we are forced to employ the technique of time-space reasoning in order to reach the level of the finite mind. Therefore
must many of the simultaneous events of eternity be presented as sequential transactions.
As a time-space creature would view the origin and differentiation of Reality, the eternal and infinite I AM achieved Deity liberation from the fetters of unqualified infinity through the exercise of inherent and eternal free will, and this divorcement from unqualified infinity produced the first absolute divinity-tension. This tension of infinity differential is resolved by the Universal Absolute, which functions to unify and co-ordinate the dynamic infinity of Total Deity and the static infinity of the Unqualified Absolute.
In this original transaction the theoretical I AM achieved the realization of personality by becoming the Eternal Father of the Original Son simultaneously with becoming the Eternal Source of the Isle of Paradise. Coexistent with the differentiation of the Son from the Father, and in the presence of Paradise, there appeared the person of the Infinite Spirit and the central universe of Havona. With the appearance of coexistent personal Deity, the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit, the Father escaped, as a personality, from otherwise inevitable diffusion throughout the potential of Total Deity. Thenceforth it is only in Trinity association with his two Deity equals that the Father fills all Deity potential, while increasingly experiential Deity is being actualized on the divinity levels of Supremacy, Ultimacy, and Absoluteness.
The concept of the I AM is a philosophic concession which we make to the time-bound, space-fettered, finite mind of man, to the impossibility of creature comprehension of eternity existences--nonbeginning, nonending realities and relationships. To the time-space creature, all things must have a beginning save only the ONE UNCAUSED--the primeval cause of causes. Therefore do we conceptualize this philosophic value-level as the I AM, at the same time instructing all creatures that the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit are coeternal with the I AM; in other words, that there never was a time when the I AM was not the Father of the Son and, with him, of the Spirit.
The Infinite is used to denote the fullness--the finality--implied by the primacy of the First Source and Center. The theoretical I AM is a creature-philosophic extension of the "infinity of will," but the Infinite is an actual value-level representing the eternity-intension of the true infinity of the absolute and unfettered free will of the Universal Father. This concept is sometimes designated the Father-Infinite.
Much of the confusion of all orders of beings, high and low, in their efforts to discover the Father-Infinite, is inherent in their limitations of comprehension. The absolute primacy of the Universal Father is not apparent on subinfinite levels; therefore is it probable that only the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit truly know the Father as an infinity; to all other personalities such a concept represents the exercise of faith."
UB
