If God exists, who invented him?

gent9662

Just wondering something there, if God does exist who was his creator? Bit of a chicken and egg I guess?

Is this a question I can post in the religious forum?

sensibleken

It's all endless regression backwards until you pick the arbitrary point of god who didn't need a creator. But you can't say the same thing of the universe, just because.

Peregrinus

dclane wrote: »

Just wondering something there, if God does exist who was his creator? Bit of a chicken and egg I guess?

Not really. In the understanding of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, God is uncreated.

But you've put your finger on a fairly abstruse theological point. If existence is characteristic of created things then an uncreated God, indeed, doesn't exist. At least, not in the sense that created things exist, which is the only sense we have. The statement that "God exists" can be true therefore only in an analogical sense - i.e. what God has is like the existence of created things, but it isn't actually that.

Is your head hurting yet?

krudler

humans did, cos there was some crazy sh1t in ancient times we couldnt explain like this big yellow thing in the sky that provides heat and light, so we made up a sky magician to provide the answers. it went like this:

1. dont understand things
2. invent sky wizard as inventor of these things
3. watch as results in 2000 years of arguing and war about said floating warlock
4. ????????
5. profit!

seamus

There's no point in asking on the religious forums really. Their argument will be that God exists outside of time and and space therefore there was no "before" God, rather he has always been.

Of course, such an explanation only came into existence when the Big Bang was introduced along with the concept that time and space are constructs of the universe (as opposed to being constants outside of the universe).

Before that they would have told you that God created the world in 6 days, before the concept of days could even exist. Now they've shifted the goalposts. So while their answer satisfies the question, it doesn't offer any information or explanation.

In the exact same way that "42" is an answer which satisfies that question.

robindch

dclane wrote: »

if God does exist who was his creator?

If you ask a religious person, they'll probably tell you that by definition, their deity is the original, uncreated god from whom all things come and the infinite regress that applies to all other arguments does not, nay cannot, apply to their argument. By definition.

It's not an argument which has won much support outside of churches and other religious outlets, though it has caused quite a lot of amusement.

dclane wrote: »

Is this a question I can post in the religious forum?

I'm sure there's no problem with that, but I'll bet you 50p you'll get the answer above.

seamus

If you're going to look at time/creation as a big reason for the lack of a God, a better idea is the concept that God created a universe solely for the benefit of human beings. Lifeforms who for all intents and purposes will only exist for less than a trillion times less than a trillionth of one percent of the total lifespan of the universe.

Seems a bit wasteful.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

There's no point in asking on the religious forums really. Their argument will be that God exists outside of time and and space therefore there was no "before" God, rather he has always been.

Of course, such an explanation only came into existence when the Big Bang was introduced along with the concept that time and space are constructs of the universe (as opposed to being constants outside of the universe).

No offence, seamus, but that’s not actually true. The notion that time began with creation and that an uncreated God is outside of time is pretty ancient. Most scholars (and indeed readers who are not completely one-eyed) find it in the Genesis account, which predates Big Bang theory by a fair spread of years.

seamus wrote: »

Before that they would have told you that God created the world in 6 days, before the concept of days could even exist. Now they've shifted the goalposts. So while their answer satisfies the question, it doesn't offer any information or explanation.

Separate point. Dclane isn’t asking about the creation of everything but God; he’s asking about the creation of God. And whether you understand the Genesis 6-day story figuratively or literally it has nothing to say about the creation of God. Genesis presents an uncreated God.

And, for the record, ancient believers were perfectly aware that the six days mentioned in Genesis couldn’t be actual days, for precisely the reason that you mention. They commented on the point fairly extensively. A simplistic literalistic interpretation of Genesis is actually quite a modern phenomenon.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

If you're going to look at time/creation as a big reason for the lack of a God, a better idea is the concept that God created a universe solely for the benefit of human beings. Lifeforms who for all intents and purposes will only exist for less than a trillion times less than a trillionth of one percent of the total lifespan of the universe.

Seems a bit wasteful.

Or wildly generous, depending on your point of view!

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or wildly generous, depending on your point of view!

If I built a mansion for my pet butterfly I imagine I would be locked up, not called generous

Peregrinus

bluewolf wrote: »

If I built a mansion for my pet butterfly I imagine I would be locked up, not called generous

Not by your butterfly, you wouldn't!

Galvasean

krudler wrote: »

humans did, cos there was some crazy sh1t in ancient times we couldnt explain like this big yellow thing in the sky that provides heat and light, so we made up a sky magician to provide the answers. it went like this:

1. dont understand things
2. invent sky wizard as inventor of these things
3. watch as results in 2000 years of arguing and war about said floating warlock
4. ????????
5. profit! prophet!

FYP

sensibleken

God was created in 1959 after an accident involving an 'intrinsic field subtractor'. He briefly dabbled in crimefighting before becoming the chief deterant to soviet agression for the united states

The Mad Hatter

bluewolf wrote: »

It's all endless regression backwards until you pick the arbitrary point of god who didn't need a creator. But you can't say the same thing of the universe, just because.

It's turtles all the way down.

bluewolf wrote: »

If I built a mansion for my pet butterfly I imagine I would be locked up, not called generous

Especially if you set it up so that the butterfly would meet with instant death anywhere outside of the jar on the counter in the hall.

krudler

seamus wrote: »

There's no point in asking on the religious forums really. Their argument will be that God exists outside of time and and space therefore there was no "before" God, rather he has always been.

Of course, such an explanation only came into existence when the Big Bang was introduced along with the concept that time and space are constructs of the universe (as opposed to being constants outside of the universe).

Before that they would have told you that God created the world in 6 days, before the concept of days could even exist. Now they've shifted the goalposts. So while their answer satisfies the question, it doesn't offer any information or explanation.

In the exact same way that "42" is an answer which satisfies that question.

I love this.

God,a supreme being of infinite power and creator of all that we know about existence, time and space= still needs a lie in. he's faffing around in an empty universe for all of eternity, does a weeks work then takes the rest of existence off, Irish politicans wouldnt get a look in :pac:

krudler

sensibleken wrote: »

God was created in 1959 after an accident involving an 'intrinsic field subtractor'. He briefly dabbled in crimefighting before becoming the chief deterant to soviet agression for the united states

He's got a literal case of blue balls too.

seamus

bluewolf wrote: »

If I built a mansion for my pet butterfly I imagine I would be locked up, not called generous

Building the mansion is OK. The fact that you change the food and water every hour for 60 years, despite the butterfuly having only existed for 10 seconds, is cause for concern.

gent9662

So can we safely say that we as human beings created God in the literal sense? In order for us to try and comprehend the universe we put it down to a divine being who was "uncreated" as he/she/it always existed.

I think I'm slowly getting it now. I think the slow evolution of mans belief in a heavinly energy source (sun) lead to the invention of a rational belief in a greater being.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

No offence, seamus, but that’s not actually true. The notion that time began with creation and that an uncreated God is outside of time is pretty ancient. Most scholars (and indeed readers who are not completely one-eyed) find it in the Genesis account, which predates Big Bang theory by a fair spread of years.

Em where?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

If you ask a religious person, they'll probably tell you that by definition, their deity is the original, uncreated god from whom all things come and the infinite regress that applies to all other arguments does not, nay cannot, apply to their argument. By definition.

And that would be correct. If God created time and space, he is not constrained by it. I realise that this sticks in the materialists craw, but I think thats just because you can't argue with it. You can just rant about it, because there is no counter to it. If God exists, you have to accept that this would be a very reasonable explanation.

It's not an argument which has won much support outside of churches and other religious outlets, though it has caused quite a lot of amusement.

Baseless derision and scoffing would be what it has caused tbh. If God exists, then there is more to life than materialism. A materialist gets p1ssed off though, that he can't form a coherent rebuttal for a very appropriate explanation of how you can't apply materialist laws to a creator. I don't actually get why atheists want to argue it anyway. Its a concept relating to God, so you already deny the premise. It should be seen as a valid and consistant explanation of what the situation would be IF God existed.

Whether you believe in God or not, or whether God is real or not, there is no denying that it is a perfectly valid explanation in terms of the concept of God. I.E. If God exists, its perfectly valid reasoning. What its supposed to satisfy in an atheist I'm not quite sure What it should be satisfying in an atheist, is that its a very valid explanation in the context of the Christian God.

The whole thing reminds me of the argument of God not being able to be measured scientifically (of couse his effects can be seen though;) ) as he is outside the natural world. the rebuttal from many ateists amounts to a sarcastic scoff of, 'How Convenient'. Its like, well, if God exists, you can't deny that this would be the way it would be, so whats the problem?

sensibleken

JimiTime wrote: »

And that would be correct. If God created time and space, he is not constrained by it. I realise that this sticks in the materialists craw, but I think thats just because you can't argue with it. You can just rant about it, because there is no counter to it. If God exists, you have to accept that this would be a very reasonable explanation.



Baseless derision and scoffing would be what it has caused tbh. If God exists, then there is more to life than materialism. A materialist gets p1ssed off though, that he can't form a coherent rebuttal for a very appropriate explanation of how you can't apply materialist laws to a creator. I don't actually get why atheists want to argue it anyway. Its a concept relating to God, so you already deny the premise. It should be seen as a valid and consistant explanation of what the situation would be IF God existed.

Whether you believe in God or not, or whether God is real or not, there is no denying that it is a perfectly valid explanation in terms of the concept of God. I.E. If God exists, its perfectly valid reasoning. What its supposed to satisfy in an atheist I'm not quite sure What it should be satisfying in an atheist, is that its a very valid explanation in the context of the Christian God.

Im sorry but this is rubbish.

Where are you getting "If God created time and space, he is not constrained by it." this is a rule you are making up, its not based on anything and if we're talking about the god of the bible then he definetely shows himself to be subject to causality.

we cant argue against it because inevitably some other non sensical rule would be made up.

I can just as easily say 1 + 3 = 5.

JimiTime

sensibleken wrote: »

Im sorry but this is rubbish.

Where are you getting "If God created time and space, he is not constrained by it." this is a rule you are making up, its not based on anything

I'm sorry, but this is just more baseless derision.

Its rather self explanatory. If Time and Space are created by a being, then it can reasonably follow, that the concept of time and space do not apply to said being. Its not simply 'made up', but rather a fairly logical thought progression.

we cant argue against it because inevitably some other non sensical rule would be made up.

I can just as easily say 1 + 3 = 5.

Its not a rule, its simply a logical deduction that says, the creator of the laws of Physics space and time, does not have to be constrained by what he has created. I.E. We can't apply the laws of the created, to the being that is outside of that creation.

sensibleken

JimiTime wrote: »

Its rather self explanatory. If Time and Space are created by a being, then it can reasonably follow, that the concept of time and space do not apply to said being. Its not simply 'made up', but rather a fairly logical thought progression.



Its not a rule, its simply a logical deduction that says, the creator of the laws of Physics space and time, does not have to be constrained by what he has created.

its not logical. prove it. I see no premises, sylogism or logical progression that says because a being can create time he is not subject to the laws of cause and effect.

please show this logical deduction.

edit since you have: how does this being exist outside his own creation. i thought he interacted with it or was omnipresent etc. this is all based on 'because he's all powerful' and 'because we say so' when its not even said in the bible. Just nonsense made up to try and get out of answering questions that even a leaving cert knowledge of physics throws up

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

And that would be correct. If God created time and space, he is not constrained by it. I realise that this sticks in the materialists craw, but I think thats just because you can't argue with it. You can just rant about it, because there is no counter to it. If God exists, you have to accept that this would be a very reasonable explanation.

The issue is not that god would not be constrained by time and space, but why only god could not be constrained by time and space. Our current configuration of the universe has time and space, but there is no saying what constrains where on the initial, energy dense phase that the big bang (and therefore time and space) expanded from.

JimiTime wrote: »

Baseless derision and scoffing would be what it has caused tbh. If God exists, then there is more to life than materialism. A materialist gets p1ssed off though, that he can't form a coherent rebuttal for a very appropriate explanation of how you can't apply materialist laws to a creator. I don't actually get why atheists want to argue it anyway. Its a concept relating to God, so you already deny the premise. It should be seen as a valid and consistant explanation of what the situation would be IF God existed.

And if god doesn't exist, then this life is all you get.
Again, the issue is not that god would be outside of these constrains, but why nothing else could also be outside of these constrains.

JimiTime wrote: »

Whether you believe in God or not, or whether God is real or not, there is no denying that it is a perfectly valid explanation in terms of the concept of God. I.E. If God exists, its perfectly valid reasoning. What its supposed to satisfy in an atheist I'm not quite sure What it should be satisfying in an atheist, is that its a very valid explanation in the context of the Christian God.

Its empty conjecture though, thats the problem. If I was god, then I would not be constrained by time and space.

JimiTime wrote: »

The whole thing reminds me of the argument of God not being able to be measured scientifically (of couse his effects can be seen though;) ) as he is outside the natural world. the rebuttal from many

Seeing as bugger all of what we have discovered is actually not based on inference (ie most of what we know comes from measuring and testing for effects of hypothetical causes, rather than directly looking for them), if we could tell that something was from god then we could test for him.

JimiTime wrote: »

ateists amounts to a sarcastic scoff of, 'How Convenient'. Its like, well, if God exists, you can't deny that this would be the way it would be, so whats the problem?

Its indistinguishable from god not existing, thats the problem. Its like saying "behind you there is a invisible, immaterial, completely silent dragon".

JimiTime

sensibleken wrote: »

its not logical. prove it. I see no premises, sylogism or logical progression that says because a being can create time he is not subject to the laws of cause and effect.

please show this logical deduction

As I said, IF God exist. Our physical laws, time, space etc is ALL part of the creation. So applying the laws which he created, to the being that is outside of this creation is not logical. It is perfectly reasonable to deduce, that the creator, is not constrained by the things he created

sensibleken

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, IF God exist. Our physical laws, time, space etc is ALL part of the creation. So applying the laws which he created, to the being that is outside of this creation is not logical. It is perfectly reasonable to deduce, that the creator, is not constrained by the things he created

ok now i get you.

IF anything is possible

Then this is what happened

SINCE not anything is possible

THEN this is bullshít

or is it 'this arguement is logical because the guy im arguing about is not subject to logic'

QED

seriously if you start off with a premise that theres a guy who is all powerful and no laws of physics apply to him because he's special. dont be suprised if anyone over the age of 5 dissmisses the arguement

DoesNotCompute

seamus wrote: »

There's no point in asking on the religious forums really. Their argument will be that God exists outside of time and and space therefore there was no "before" God, rather he has always been.

Of course, such an explanation only came into existence when the Big Bang was introduced along with the concept that time and space are constructs of the universe (as opposed to being constants outside of the universe).

Before that they would have told you that God created the world in 6 days, before the concept of days could even exist. Now they've shifted the goalposts. So while their answer satisfies the question, it doesn't offer any information or explanation.

Some of them still do :rolleyes:

To answer the question, man created God to satisfy his need for a higher calling.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The issue is not that god would not be constrained by time and space, but why only god could not be constrained by time and space. Our current configuration of the universe has time and space, but there is no saying what constrains where on the initial, energy dense phase that the big bang (and therefore time and space) expanded from.


And if god doesn't exist, then this life is all you get.
Again, the issue is not that god would be outside of these constrains, but why nothing else could also be outside of these constrains.


Its empty conjecture though, thats the problem. If I was god, then I would not be constrained by time and space.


Seeing as bugger all of what we have discovered is actually not based on inference (ie most of what we know comes from measuring and testing for effects of hypothetical causes, rather than directly looking for them), if we could tell that something was from god then we could test for him.


Its indistinguishable from god not existing, thats the problem. Its like saying "behind you there is a invisible, immaterial, completely silent dragon".

Now you're getting it. If the premise is that God exists, then the explanation is perfectly fine. If the premise is God does not exist, the explanation is perfectly fine in the context of the premise that God exists:)

So when a Christian is asked, 'but who created God', it is a most reasonable explanation. The issue for some atheists it seems, is that they are thinking its used as some proof of the Christian Gods existence etc. The explanation simply answers the issue of if a being created the universe, it follows that it doesn't have to obey its laws.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, IF God exist.

You mean, if your idea of god exists?

JimiTime wrote: »

Our physical laws, time, space etc is ALL part of the creation.

How do you know? I assume by creation, you mean from the big bang, so I'll give you space and time, but how do you know that none of our physical laws (or some other set of physical laws) applied outside of creation?

JimiTime wrote: »

So applying the laws which he created, to the being that is outside of this creation is not logical. It is perfectly reasonable to deduce, that the creator, is not constrained by the things he created

How do you know enough about creation, time/space and causality to say that? What makes it anything but conjecture?

JimiTime

sensibleken wrote: »

ok now i get you.

IF anything is possible

Then this is what happened

SINCE not anything is possible

THEN this is bullshít

or is it 'this arguement is logical because the guy im arguing about is not subject to logic'

QED

seriously if you start off with a premise that theres a guy who is all powerful and no laws of physics apply to him because he's special. dont be suprised if anyone over the age of 5 dissmisses the arguement

You still make the mistake in thinking this explanation is used as some kind of proof of existence. Its an explanation given to someone who demands a materialist explanation of the concept of God. It simply states, that IF God exists, then its not a question that requires a materialist answer. So, an atheist should know better than to ask it, as he should be aware that it contains an explaination outside of his bottom line of there being no creator. It is perfectly valid in the context of God, and that is all it seeks to explain.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Now you're getting it. If the premise is that God exists, then the explanation is perfectly fine. If the premise is God does not exist, the explanation is perfectly fine in the context of the premise that God exists:)

So when a Christian is asked, 'but who created God', it is a most reasonable explanation. The issue for some atheists it seems, is that they are thinking its used as some proof of the Christian Gods existence etc. The explanation simply answers the issue of if a being created the universe, it follows that it doesn't have to obey its laws.

So its empty, unprovable conjecture? Intellectually useless because it can be equally applied to the state of the universe pre big bang? And even then not all that reasonable as it assumes the environment of a non time/space universe condition.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You mean, if your idea of god exists?

No, any concept that says the universe is created.

How do you know? I assume by creation, you mean from the big bang, so I'll give you space and time, but how do you know that none of our physical laws (or some other set of physical laws) applied outside of creation?


How do you know enough about creation, time/space and causality to say that? What makes it anything but conjecture?

I don't know enough, nor do I claim to. The explanation however, is a reasonable deduction to the question of putting materialist constraints on a being that created the material. Its not a definitive answer, it just puts to bed any question that demand that God must be constrained by the material.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How do you know enough about creation, time/space and causality to say that? What makes it anything but conjecture?

faith in anything including religion or atheism is conjecture.Pointing that out is unnecessary due to the obviousness of the position.

As regards the op's question,Gods dad maybe? who knows?

Theres no certainty in why we're here or beyond it.so answers are either faith or conjecture depending on what you want to or are persudaed to believe or both if not mutually exclusive to you.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So its empty, unprovable conjecture? Intellectually useless because it can be equally applied to the state of the universe pre big bang? And even then not all that reasonable as it assumes the environment of a non time/space universe condition.

Well, whatever rhetorical derisory slant you want to put on it, I think I've been quite thorough in what it sets out to achieve, and achieve it, it does. As I said, its why its quite confusing that some atheists get their knickers in a twist about it.

In summary, If a being created the universe, it does not follow that it is constrained by what we observe to be the laws etc of said universe.

Its an explanation to those who seek to put materialist constraints on the concept of God. It achieves its goal perfectly.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

You still make the mistake in thinking this explanation is used as some kind of proof of existence. Its an explanation given to someone who demands a materialist explanation of the concept of God. It simply states, that IF God exists, then its not a question that requires a materialist answer. So, an atheist should know better than to ask it, as he should be aware that it contains an explaination outside of his bottom line of there being no creator. It is perfectly valid in the context of God, and that is all it seeks to explain.

What you seem to be forgetting is the context of the theist being asked where does god come from. Its usually after the theist claims that the universe couldn't have been spontaneously created because of some nonsense to do with temporal causality effecting a pre temporal universe. This theistic response to the obvious rebuttal is supposed to be justification of why this doesn't apply to god, but they are only arbitrarily applying it to god, because it suits their bottom line, that there is a creator. But its not justifiable because the initial claim isn't justifiable. We dont know what limitations are on a pre space/time universe so we cant say that it would need an external force to overcome them.

sensibleken

JimiTime wrote: »

You still make the mistake in thinking this explanation is used as some kind of proof of existence. Its an explanation given to someone who demands a materialist explanation of the concept of God. It simply states, that IF God exists, then its not a question that requires a materialist answer. So, an atheist should know better than to ask it, as he should be aware that it contains an explaination outside of his bottom line of there being no creator. It is perfectly valid in the context of God, and that is all it seeks to explain.

we seem to have diferent ideas of what valid means.

To me a valid arguement is a logical one. In your arguement logic doesnt exist and therefore your arguement is valid. but by the same token I can say the morrigan created the world by farting out existance. I just would be amazed if anyone believed me

We are not demanding a materialist explaination of god, we are demanding an explaination of the material universe

KERSPLAT!

JimiTime wrote: »

You still make the mistake in thinking this explanation is used as some kind of proof of existence. Its an explanation given to someone who demands a materialist explanation of the concept of God. It simply states, that IF God exists, then its not a question that requires a materialist answer. So, an atheist should know better than to ask it, as he should be aware that it contains an explaination outside of his bottom line of there being no creator. It is perfectly valid in the context of God, and that is all it seeks to explain.

I actually understand this and get what your saying... I think

The question is who invented God, so we ask that question, acknowledging that he does exist, anyone who doesnt believe but asks the question wont believe the answer so why ask?? Eh actually I dunno and now I sound stupid :mad:

JimiTime

sensibleken wrote: »

we seem to have diferent ideas of what valid means.

To me a valid arguement is a logical one. In your arguement logic doesnt exist and therefore your arguement is valid. but by the same token I can say the morrigan created the world by farting out existance. I just would be amazed if anyone believed me

We are not demanding a materialist explaination of god, we are demanding an explaination of the material universe

Well that is beyond the remit of the OP, and of the given explanation. As I've constantly repeated, the explanation is about how IF a god or being or whatever exists who created the universe. Then it does not follow, that this being is constrained by the things we observe as our universes laws.

sensibleken

JimiTime wrote: »

Well that is beyond the remit of the OP, and of the given explanation. As I've constantly repeated, the explanation is about how IF a god or being or whatever exists who created the universe. Then it does not follow, that this being is constrained by the things we observe as our universes laws.

yet you havent shown why it wouldnt be constrained.

"x created y, therefore y has no effect on x" is not a principle of logic, it requires further explaination of the logical paths between your one premise and conclusion.

(normal sylogism has 2 premises by the way)

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What you seem to be forgetting is the context of the theist being asked where does god come from. Its usually after the theist claims that the universe couldn't have been spontaneously created because of some nonsense to do with temporal causality effecting a pre temporal universe.

Well, if thats your experience, then I wont argue. I can only speak in terms of the correct context of the explanation. I.E. If someone demands of a Christian for example, that he explain where God began in terms of materialism. It is used to show that its a faulty premise to demand such a thing.

This theistic response to the obvious rebuttal is supposed to be justification of why this doesn't apply to god, but they are only arbitrarily applying it to god, because it suits their bottom line, that there is a creator. But its not justifiable because the initial claim isn't justifiable.

I can only repeat what I've said. It only works in the context of explaining how you can't demand materialist contraints on the concept of a creator, no more, no less.

JimiTime

sensibleken wrote: »

yet you havent shown why it wouldnt be constrained.

Nor do I have to. All that needs to be established, is that if x is outside of y, and we do not know what constraints, if any, apply to x, then we can't demand that x is subject to the constraints of y.

rossc007

Religious Answer - No-one
Materialist Answer - No-one

Finally, we're in agreement!

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

faith in anything including religion or atheism is conjecture.Pointing that out is unnecessary due to the obviousness of the position.

As regards the op's question,Gods dad maybe? who knows?

Theres no certainty in why we're here or beyond it.so answers are either faith or conjecture depending on what you want to or are persudaed to believe or both if not mutually exclusive to you.

Wow, failed at the first hurdle. There can be no "faith in atheism" for atheism is a lack of faith. Besides that, there is a simple answer that, in the absense of evidence, require no conjecture: I dont know.

JimiTime

IPAM wrote: »

I actually understand this and get what your saying... I think

The question is who invented God, so we ask that question, acknowledging that he does exist, anyone who doesnt believe but asks the question wont believe the answer so why ask?? Eh actually I dunno and now I sound stupid :mad:

Not really:) What I'm saying, is that we know about the laws of the universe as we observe them. Now, a lot of the time, people may say in relation to the big bang, 'But where did that thing that went bang come from?' People think in terms of the scientific concept of cause and effect. Someone who believes in God however says, 'Well it does not follow that God must follow the constrainst of his creation'. If he created the universe and subsequently its laws etc, you can't demand that this being must also be subject to these laws.

So the reasoning progresses that you can't demand the laws of the universe apply to the concept of a creator of the universe.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

No, any concept that says the universe is created.

Any concept that says the universe is created by your idea of god, right? Because for all we know, pantheism could be true and the universe is simply a facet of god, which would make god subject to its limitations.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know enough, nor do I claim to. The explanation however, is a reasonable deduction to the question of putting materialist constraints on a being that created the material. Its not a definitive answer, it just puts to bed any question that demand that God must be constrained by the material.

It doesn't, because its not logical. It first gives an issue with why this limitation which doesn't effect god couldn't also not effect the pre big bang (ie non temporal and non spatial) universe. Secondly its an assertion based on a lack of imagination, as you ignore possibilities like pantheism.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if thats your experience, then I wont argue. I can only speak in terms of the correct context of the explanation. I.E. If someone demands of a Christian for example, that he explain where God began in terms of materialism. It is used to show that its a faulty premise to demand such a thing.

Dont play innocent, Jimi. The only reason someone would demand of a christian where god comes from is when a christian claims that god is needed because the universe couldn't have arosen by itself because of infinite regression or some such bs. The response is god doesn't need to be created because he doesn't.

JimiTime wrote: »

I can only repeat what I've said. It only works in the context of explaining how you can't demand materialist contraints on the concept of a creator, no more, no less.

Except it doesn't explain it at all.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Nor do I have to. All that needs to be established, is that if x is outside of y, and we do not know what constraints, if any, apply to x, then we can't demand that x is subject to the constraints of y.

And then, if you dont know what constraints apply to x, you cant demand that its not under those constraints. But you have been the whole time:

If God created time and space, he is not constrained by it

If Time and Space are created by a being, then it can reasonably follow, that the concept of time and space do not apply to said being

IF God exist. Our physical laws, time, space etc is ALL part of the creation. So applying the laws which he created, to the being that is outside of this creation is not logical.

etc, etc, etc,

You have changed from the position of "god logically cant be constrained" to "you cant demand that he is because we dont know". They are fundamentally different positions.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Any concept that says the universe is created by your idea of god, right? Because for all we know, pantheism could be true and the universe is simply a facet of god, which would make god subject to its limitations.

TBH, this is totally irrelevant.

It doesn't, because its not logical. It first gives an issue with why this limitation which doesn't effect god couldn't also not effect the pre big bang (ie non temporal and non spatial) universe. Secondly its an assertion based on a lack of imagination, as you ignore possibilities like pantheism.

Again, and I repeat, it doesn't seek to answer these questions. It sets out to show that you cannot demand that the concept of a creator must be subject to the laws of the thing it is said to have created.

To repeat, all it sets out to show is that:

IF X created Y, and we can only observe Y and not observe X, and do not know its constraints, if any etc. Then we cannot demand or insist that X is constrained by the same laws as Y.

Now before you go off on a tangent, pay close attention. the little formula above is what this whole thing is about. The fact that you are still asking things, shows that you still misunderstand the concept.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

It's all endless regression backwards until you pick the arbitrary point of god who didn't need a creator. But you can't say the same thing of the universe, just because.

Actually there are a number of philosophical explanations that would distinguish God as a necessary entity versus the creation as a contingent entity. You might want to look up some of the philosophy, I'm thinking of Thomas Aquinas' views on Creation, and James Sadowsky's views on the Infinite Regress. I've posted them on this forum before, but it'd probably be more useful if you looked them up elsewhere yourself.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have changed from the position of "god logically cant be constrained" to "you cant demand that he is because we dont know". They are fundamentally different positions.

Well God Cannot logically be constrained if you don't know can he?