Quick Question!!

[Showmeproof]

I think this is a common argument/debate:

Believer: "God created the universe."
Skeptic: "who created God?"
Believer "God has alwyas been here."

IMO, that answer, "God has always been here" is a "cop-out," a way to beat- around-the-bush, etc. And no matter what you say to these people, they are not convinced. Once you state "God has always been here" you attribute supernatural qualities to this Being, which excludes any type of rational answer being associated to this Being. I mean, how can you assign logic/rationale to something SO supernatural, according to the theists. God is not open to the interpretations of the limited capacities of human thought. This seems like a common argument among believers, and yet, when they say that, it IRKS me SO much :mad: I do not even know how to respond! What do you say when a believer responds with that argument?

[ExMinister]

Well, to quote CF Larsen on the forum (who has now gotten even ME saying this at times), you could always just say, "EVIDENCE?"

[Bri]

I'm sorry, but you're asking the wrong question. "Who created God?" isn't an argument against the existence of God any more than "Where did the singularity come from?" is an argument against the Big Bang.

ExMinister has it right, it's a question of a lack of evidence of God.

-Bri

[jimtron]

If god didn't require a creator, why should the Universe require one?

[Bri]

It shouldn't, of course. I'm not saying that the argument "God must exist because the universe requires a creator" is valid. I'm saying that "God must not exist because God would require a creator" is equally invalid.

-Bri

[Silentknight]

If you ask me, they're just trying to avoid admitting to themselves that the answer is already known. Humans created God, just as they created every other god that has ever been believed in and worshiped. Besides, God would not even be God without people around to acknowledge and worship him.

[Rufo]

I completely agree with Bri, but an interesting question to follow this kind of reasoning up with would be: "If God is not open to the interpretations of the limited capacities of human thought, how can you claim to know or understand anything about God?"

Not necessarily a "HAHA, I WIN" argument, but you might get an interesting answer and move the discussion to more fruitful ground.

[Bri]

I don't think Christians are trying to avoid admitting that the answer is already known.

I think that some Christians use a faulty argument in order to try to "prove" that God exists (the so-called watchmaker argument, that the universe could not exist without a creator as a watch could not exist without a watchmaker).

By the same token, God can't be disproved by using faulty arguments either.

-Bri

[Bri]

I completely agree with Bri, but an interesting question to follow this kind of reasoning up with would be: "If God is not open to the interpretations of the limited capacities of human thought, how can you claim to know or understand anything about God?"

We might have the capacity to understand certain aspects of a supernatural being, but we would be unable to understand everything about him (or her).

-Bri

[Silentknight]

I don't think Christians are trying to avoid admitting that the answer is already known.

I think that some Christians use a faulty argument in order to try to "prove" that God exists (the so-called watchmaker argument, that the universe could not exist without a creator as a watch could not exist without a watchmaker).

By the same token, God can't be disproved by using faulty arguments either.

-Bri

I know, I was just saying how I would respond to the sample argument in the OP, as a way of catching them off guard. In my experience, trying to explain to them the fallacy of special pleading usually gets you nowhere.

[jimtron]

It shouldn't, of course. I'm not saying that the argument "God must exist because the universe requires a creator" is valid. I'm saying that "God must not exist because God would require a creator" is equally invalid.

-Bri

I agree. But I think it's very common for believers to be hypocritical and use the first argument above.

[roger]

My response is: "you're just making **** up". Which they are.

[JoeEllison]

My response is: "you're just making **** up". Which they are.

My response is slightly different(sometimes, when I remember it...): "You aren't just making it up? How can I tell the difference?":D

[Rufo]

We might have the capacity to understand certain aspects of a supernatural being, but we would be unable to understand everything about him (or her).

-Bri
True. Which is why it's not necessarily a "HAHA, I WIN" argument. I just think it'd be interesting to hear what exactly someone considers within human comprehension and why. To be honest, one of my personal problems with most religions is that they seem to simplify a concept - God - while at the same time acknowledging and praising its complexity and incomprehensibility. It doesn't necessarily make them bad, but I'd like to hear a believer's take on my dilemma.

[Bri]

I agree. But I think it's very common for believers to be hypocritical and use the first argument above.

Granted. But the dialog in the O.P. didn't indicate such an argument. Perhaps it was implied, but all it said was "God created the universe" which is a statement, not an argument per se.

The skeptic in the dialog was actually the one committing a fallacy by suggesting that if God created the universe, something must have created God.

-Bri

[Bri]

True. Which is why it's not necessarily a "HAHA, I WIN" argument. I just think it'd be interesting to hear what exactly someone considers within human comprehension and why. To be honest, one of my personal problems with most religions is that they seem to simplify a concept - God - while at the same time acknowledging and praising its complexity and incomprehensibility. It doesn't necessarily make them bad, but I'd like to hear a believer's take on my dilemma.

I think most theists who would simplify a concept of God do so acknowledging that the simplification is only for their benefit given their inability to fully comprehend God. I have heard descriptions like "God is pure good" or "God is love" which seems simple on the surface, but "goodness" and "love" are themselves complex concepts that evade complete comprehension.

Nonetheless, it might segue into an interesting discussion. If they were able to answer what aspects of God they know about for a fact, you might then ask them how they know. Undoubtedly, they will say because it says so in the Bible. To which you can ask how the author of the Bible knows, to which they will likely answer that the author of the Bible is God. To which you would ask how do you know the author of the Bible is God? To which they would have to say "Because the Bible says so." At which point (hopefully) the circular logic becomes clear.

-Bri