who made god

bpesta22 · 12th October 2005, 04:20 PM

Posting this here from another board, mostly because the argument frustrates the hell out of me. Just curious how an atheist would respond to this:

"Who made god"

I find this to be the most moronic question that people ask. They don't consider if this is a logical inquiry in the first place, but instead is used as some "gotcha" device, pond it off as a legitimate question as to why the concept of God is illogical. I truly believe most who ask this refuse to stop and think if it's a valid inquiry, probably because closer scrutiny would make it fall apart. As Dominick clearly states in other groups, you can't ask the question "where is the bachelor's wife?" because you're asking something illogical. An object can be square, or it can be a circle, but it can't be both at the same time. People who ask this basically don't want an answer and have set up everyone for failure, because the premise of the question itself doesn't allow for one.
Christians don't believe that EVERYTHING has a cause. Christians believe that everything that BEGINS has a cause, as the universe clearly has, and this is something that is as widely accepted as the theory of relativity. We believe that since God did not begin, it does not require to answer the irrationality of who made him. Only things that begin need to be accounted for, a triggering mechanism that provides for its existence.
Since the the big bang had a stage of singularity, it is the stage when matter, space and time began. God is beyond these parameters because they didn't exist before their initiation stage. Now, I wish people would stop asking non-sensical questions and using them for excuses.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 12th October 2005, 04:57 PM

The question "who made god" is often asked in the context of Intelligent Design, where an inference is made from human design to the design of the universe. That inference does not allow for the designer to be the creator, so it is legitimate to ask who made the designer.

I agree that asking "who made God," given the traditional definition of god (such as it is), doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course, it also doesn't make sense to insist that God is forever and the universe was created. I disagree that it is clear that the universe had a beginning.

~~ Paul

Jesus · 12th October 2005, 05:08 PM

It's specious reasoning, for sure.

It's a cop-out, because placing god in a wholly separate category (i.e. the supernatural) skirts around the necessity for logic or evidence.

"There's no good evidence for god"
"God is above such things!"

"If everything needs a creator, who created god?"
"God is above such things!"

It's extraordinarily lazy and/or intellectually dishonest.

Iamme · 12th October 2005, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Jesus

It's specious reasoning, for sure.

It's a cop-out, because placing god in a wholly separate category (i.e. the supernatural) skirts around the necessity for logic or evidence.

"There's no good evidence for god"
"God is above such things!"

"If everything needs a creator, who created god?"
"God is above such things!"

It's extraordinarily lazy and/or intellectually dishonest.

So... I can assume that you really AREN'T Jesus then?

Anti_Hypeman · 12th October 2005, 06:03 PM

Its a perfectly valid question I dont see the problem. If I think the only food on the planet is Peanut Butter does that make you the idiot for asking me to explain Jelly?

Iamme · 12th October 2005, 06:05 PM

There can be a God, no matter how you slice it. But the word God and what it means exactly is the real important part.

If we can all agree that a 'force' is at work, none of us would have a problem if we decided to coin the word God, onto this force.

But once we start talking about this God who creates and grants eternal life to his followers, that becomes an entirely different ballgame. Now we are talking about some mind out there that has some sort of reasoning power AND is mindful of us.

Are we willing to believe that some force exists that knows what to do, exists?

And then we have to ask ourselves if we see evidence that this force that might knows what to do, cares about us at all. If this thinking force does not, then what good does it do to alter our life to fit the plans of this thinking force?

It is fun to ponder this. It's either this or thinking of perpetual motion machines.

Tricky · 12th October 2005, 06:30 PM

To resurrect (hah!) this tired but servicable syllogism:

Premise 1: Every real thing requires a creator
Premise 2: God is real
Conclusion: God requires a creator.

In order for the conclusion of this syllogism to be incorrect then one of the two premises must be incorrect. So is it Premise 1, that every real thing does not require a creator, or is it Premise 2, that God is not real?

If you try to change premise 1 to "every real thing except God requires a creator", then the premise resolves to "Some real things require creators". That leaves room for other real things to not require creators, such as the universe itself.

If you try to fudge with premise 2 by saying "God is not real in the same way that other things are real", then you allow that there is more than one reality, leaving room for virtually anything else to be a part of a separate reality. Thus, the word "real" becomes meaningless.

So to respond to the question from the moron in the other forum, I would say, God doesn't require a creator if you are allowed to change, in mid-stream, the definition of every one of your terms to suit your whim.

c4ts · 12th October 2005, 09:31 PM

In total disregard for all logic, God created himself.

DevilsAdvocate · 13th October 2005, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

"Who made god"

I'll go with what Tricky said. When we ask, "Why does anything exist?" We get, "God made it." So we ask, "Why does God exist?" We get, "Because it is God." So God->Exist and Exist->God, then Exist->Exist and God->God. So God simply "is" and therefore existance simply "is".

So when we (beg) the question "Why does anything exist?", we get (in long form):
Exist = God
God = Exist

Therefore,

Exist = Exist

So, everything exists because it exists. So scrap God and get straight from exist to exist. No God needed.

Of course (sort of) something somehow made everything exist from nothing (at least as well as we can reasonablly understand anything). Something caused something to go "bang". Like a pool que hitting a triangle of pool balls. Let's call that something "God". Then "God" started it off, and after that it is out of "God"'s hands. The balls will roll where they may. And thier rolls will follow the laws of physics and have nothing whatsoever to do with the initiator "God". Actually "God" is not the cue ball, but rather the action of the cue ball hitting the triangle (the creator of the whole action). Once that action is completed "God" is dead and meaningless. God is dead and meaningless, at least in terms of universe creation.

El Greco · 13th October 2005, 12:32 AM

Don't look at me. I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't even there at the time. Honestly.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 03:22 AM

Is there a time when nothing could have existed, in the absolute sense? If not, then why should it require that God have a beginning?

Mid · 13th October 2005, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

"Who made god"

Well when a mummy Deity and daddy Deity love each other very much ...

sorry I couldn't resist

Fungrim · 13th October 2005, 04:02 AM

Yes, if we agree that god has the attribute of "no beginning" then the question "who made god" makes little sense. However, I would not particularly agree. I also find it hard to think that all Christian would now know-about/use/agree-with that part of the Kalam cosmological argument either. Obviously, if in discussion, my opponent happends misstep and get intto a position where the "no beginning" attribute no longer applies I will pop the question.

(And no, I don't think the Kalam argument is very good either).

Beerina · 13th October 2005, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Iamme

There can be a God, no matter how you slice it. But the word God and what it means exactly is the real important part.

Well, as has been mentioned, if complexity of reality implies a designer, then that designer is also complex. Does it not imply a designer of that designer?

And so on?

But if God could have always existed, why couldn't reality have always existed?

And Intelligent Design still does not explain things like nipples for men, or why the tailbone is a bunch of fused, degenerate vertebra instead of a solid bone process, which evolution handles without breaking a sweat. ID must throw up its hands and say, "Well, there is a reason, we just don't know it yet." Which, for any other scientific theory, is considered as evidence against it, but proponents don't seem to care as they are afraid of being heaved into Hell if they ponder it, by their kind, loving god.

Fungrim · 13th October 2005, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

But if God could have always existed, why couldn't reality have always existed?

That's the problem isn't it. With the risc of derailing the thread, this is what William Lane Craig (the main proponent of the Kalam cosmological argument I know of) writes:

Quote:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Obviously it is point number two above that "explains" why the universe must have a beginning.

Huh-What? · 13th October 2005, 07:18 AM

Why is it, when we can trace the existence of any religion back to its origin in history and thus the beginning of the "existence" of any deity of that religion to a point in time, that there are people that still want to believe that these deities created everything and it wasn't human beings that made them up?

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Well, as has been mentioned, if complexity of reality implies a designer, then that designer is also complex. Does it not imply a designer of that designer?

Only if that reality and its designer are one and the same. However, why can't the temporal (the material Universe) be a subset of the infinite and eternal?

Quote:

And Intelligent Design still does not explain things like nipples for men, or why the tailbone is a bunch of fused, degenerate vertebra instead of a solid bone process, which evolution handles without breaking a sweat. ID must throw up its hands and say, "Well, there is a reason, we just don't know it yet." Which, for any other scientific theory, is considered as evidence against it, but proponents don't seem to care as they are afraid of being heaved into Hell if they ponder it, by their kind, loving god.

And if you take away the "randomness" from evolution which, has no business being there in the first place, what do you get? ... The complexity of the design. Indeed, look at all the design inherent in a single seed. Is it conceivable that this foretells a similar story to the beginning of the Universe?

Odin · 13th October 2005, 09:35 AM

random slightly related question-

Could God create another God?

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Odin

random slightly related question-

Could God create another God?

I am not God. Albeit the "I," which I refer to as myself, "thinks" it knows everything.

So, if God created me, perhaps that's the next best thing?

Tricky · 13th October 2005, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Is there a time when nothing could have existed, in the absolute sense? If not, then why should it require that God have a beginning?

Absolute nothing? As opposed to partial nothing?

You are getting tangled up in your terminology again, Iacchus. You speak of nothing as if it were something, sort of like saying "if nothing exists, what is holding it?"

But if you are suggesting that there is a thing which exists forever, then it might as well be the pre-universe or the void or whatever you call it. Nothing says that it be an intelligent entity. That is just another ego-centric human superimposing his own template of what is necessary.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Only if that reality and its designer are one and the same. However, why can't the temporal (the material Universe) be a subset of the infinite and eternal?

That is a contradiction in terms. A designer cannot design itself. The whole flawed idea behind intelligent design is that something must preceed the thing which is designed. Or are you going to change the definition of "design" such that it no longer means "design"?

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And if you take away the "randomness" from evolution which, has no business being there in the first place, what do you get? ... The complexity of the design.

LOL. Who are you to say what has "buisness being there" in evolution? You have shown time and time again that you have absolutely no concept of how it works. That sort of makes any statement you make about it rather suspect.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Indeed, look at all the design inherent in a single seed. Is it conceivable that this foretells a similar story to the beginning of the Universe?

I see no design whatsoever in a seed or in the Universe. I see patterns which can occur completely without the need of a designer. I realize that concept is beyond your grasp, more's the pity, but we can't let the inability of some individuals to understand nature to impede our search for knowledge.

uruk · 13th October 2005, 10:15 AM

If god never had a begining would mean that there would be an infinite amount of time before he created this universe. But that's irrational.
And what was he doing for all that time before he created this universe? Doing nothing?

Any way you cut it, god is an irrational concept.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Absolute nothing? As opposed to partial nothing?

You are getting tangled up in your terminology again, Iacchus. You speak of nothing as if it were something, sort of like saying "if nothing exists, what is holding it?"

What, sort of like being "a little bit pregnant?" No, I'm afraid not.

Quote:

But if you are suggesting that there is a thing which exists forever, then it might as well be the pre-universe or the void or whatever you call it. Nothing says that it be an intelligent entity. That is just another ego-centric human superimposing his own template of what is necessary.

And just think, if there was only one thing to set it in contrast with nothing, how complex this nothingness would have to be ...

Quote:

That is a contradiction in terms. A designer cannot design itself. The whole flawed idea behind intelligent design is that something must preceed the thing which is designed. Or are you going to change the definition of "design" such that it no longer means "design"?

The thing is, we have either absolute complexity (even if non-material) or, absolute nothingness.

Quote:

LOL. Who are you to say what has "buisness being there" in evolution? You have shown time and time again that you have absolutely no concept of how it works. That sort of makes any statement you make about it rather suspect.

So, at what point do you claim you are not a determinist?

Quote:

I see no design whatsoever in a seed or in the Universe. I see patterns which can occur completely without the need of a designer. I realize that concept is beyond your grasp, more's the pity, but we can't let the inability of some individuals to understand nature to impede our search for knowledge.

A seed is self-contained. And everything that "unfolds," unfolds from that seed.

Taffer · 13th October 2005, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Is there a time when nothing could have existed, in the absolute sense? If not, then why should it require that God have a beginning?

If God doesn't have a beginning, then the universe doesn't need a beginning, so God becomes redundant.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by uruk

If god never had a begining would mean that would be an infinite amount of time before he created this universe. But that's irrational.
And what was he doing for all that before he created this universe? Doing nothing?

Any way you cut it, god is an irrational concept.

Is there anything which is the least bit "uncomplex" about existence? So, was there ever a time when nothing (in the absolute sense) ever existed? Do you deem this to be an irrational concept too?

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Taffer

If God doesn't have a beginning, then the universe doesn't need a beginning, so God becomes redundant.

And, can you fathom the beginning of existence? And no, I'm not referring to the Big Bang here. How could this be, unless it were set in contrast to absolutely nothing?

shemp · 13th October 2005, 10:40 AM

OK I confess, I made God. And I'm really sorry for all the trouble He's caused. But if you want to sue me, you'll have to contact my lawyers.

uruk · 13th October 2005, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Is there anything which is the least bit "uncomplex" about existence? So, was there ever a time when nothing (in the absolute sense) ever existed? Do you deem this to be an irrational concept too?

"absolute nothing" would mean that there would be no time either because time is "something". Absolute nothing is irrational. But that does not mean there is a designer or god creating anything. We are locked in a box in this universe. There is no before or outside of this universe that we can rationaly describe. If god exists, he clearly exists "outside" of this univers (otherwise we'd be able to test or observe him) and that would make him irrational. He would not follow or obey any of the rules or laws which govern this existance (i.e. physics, logic). There is no means by which we would be able to understand him rationaly because we only have the rules and references of this existance to comprehend him by.

Taffer · 13th October 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And, can you fathom the beginning of existence? And no, I'm not referring to the Big Bang here. How could this be, unless it were set in contrast to absolutely nothing?

As uruk said, if God exists, he is outside the universe.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Taffer

As uruk said, if God exists, he is outside the universe.

Meaning He is immaterial, with respect to the (material) Universe we live in currently.

Taffer · 13th October 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Meaning He is immaterial, with respect to the (material) Universe we live in currently.

And thus does not interact with anything in our universe, and is thus not needed for the running of the universe. Try again.

uruk · 13th October 2005, 11:36 AM

Yep. That would mean god is "immaterial" with respect to everything.

Tricky · 13th October 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Iacchus

What, sort of like being "a little bit pregnant?" No, I'm afraid not.

So you admit that there is no different in "nothingness" versus "absolute nothingness"? Then why do you keep adding that unnecessary word?

Originally Posted by Iacchus

And just think, if there was only one thing to set it in contrast with nothing, how complex this nothingness would have to be ...

Just think how much more lucid you would be if you tried to use words according to their definitions rather than what you imagine them to mean...

Originally Posted by Iacchus

The thing is, we have either absolute complexity (even if non-material) or, absolute nothingness.

Again, your use of the word "absolute" is nonsensical. In fact, the whole sentence is nonsensical. The vacuous pronouncements you love to make regarding your perceived dichotomy of reality mean nothing to anyone other than yourself.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, at what point do you claim you are not a determinist?

At the point that I know the meaning of "determininst", a point that you have apparently not yet reached.

Originally Posted by Iacchus

A seed is self-contained. And everything that "unfolds," unfolds from that seed.

Completely incorrect. Seeds require external things, such as warmth and water to germinate. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, but then, that's kind of par for the course for you.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Taffer

And thus does not interact with anything in our universe, and is thus not needed for the running of the universe. Try again.

Most folks would claim that thought -- which, accompanies the realm of spirit -- is not physical. Therefore if God affects us, He affects us more in the way we think, and everything else by means of the subtleties thereof.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Completely incorrect. Seeds require external things, such as warmth and water to germinate. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, but then, that's kind of par for the course for you.

Yes, and the Universe would require another "medium" (God) to interact with. The Universe of its own accord could not stand.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by uruk

Yep. That would mean god is "immaterial" with respect to everything.

Everything "physical" that is ...

Taffer · 13th October 2005, 02:11 PM

Iacchus, something that is Immaterial cannot, by its very definition, interact with something that is material. If God is immaterial, he cannot interact with anything in the universe.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Taffer

Iacchus, something that is Immaterial cannot, by its very definition, interact with something that is material. If God is immaterial, he cannot interact with anything in the universe.

Well, then perhaps we have a "misconception" of terms here? Because if one were to create something, there must be a means by which to do so, as well as interact with it.

Taffer · 13th October 2005, 02:20 PM

You are arguing in a big circle. You start with the assumption that God exists and created the universe, then move on to say he must interact with the universe, then when asked how the Immaterial god can interact with the Material universe you say "by some unknown mechanism, for he obviously did in creating the universe". Circular!

If God is Immaterial, then he cannot interact with the universe. You have no evidence for this magical 'stuff' by which he does. If God is Material, he must be inside the universe and therefore could not have created it.

BJQ87 · 13th October 2005, 02:29 PM

to uruk- you call it irrational, i call it surpassing human reason.

Iacchus · 13th October 2005, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Taffer

You are arguing in a big circle. You start with the assumption that God exists and created the universe, then move on to say he must interact with the universe, then when asked how the Immaterial god can interact with the Material universe you say "by some unknown mechanism, for he obviously did in creating the universe". Circular!

If God is Immaterial, then he cannot interact with the universe. You have no evidence for this magical 'stuff' by which he does. If God is Material, he must be inside the universe and therefore could not have created it.

Well, how do we go about describing something which, for all intents and purposes, is not "tangible" to our senses?

12th October 2005, 04:20 PM	#1
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	who made god Posting this here from another board, mostly because the argument frustrates the hell out of me. Just curious how an atheist would respond to this: "Who made god" I find this to be the most moronic question that people ask. They don't consider if this is a logical inquiry in the first place, but instead is used as some "gotcha" device, pond it off as a legitimate question as to why the concept of God is illogical. I truly believe most who ask this refuse to stop and think if it's a valid inquiry, probably because closer scrutiny would make it fall apart. As Dominick clearly states in other groups, you can't ask the question "where is the bachelor's wife?" because you're asking something illogical. An object can be square, or it can be a circle, but it can't be both at the same time. People who ask this basically don't want an answer and have set up everyone for failure, because the premise of the question itself doesn't allow for one. Christians don't believe that EVERYTHING has a cause. Christians believe that everything that BEGINS has a cause, as the universe clearly has, and this is something that is as widely accepted as the theory of relativity. We believe that since God did not begin, it does not require to answer the irrationality of who made him. Only things that begin need to be accounted for, a triggering mechanism that provides for its existence. Since the the big bang had a stage of singularity, it is the stage when matter, space and time began. God is beyond these parameters because they didn't exist before their initiation stage. Now, I wish people would stop asking non-sensical questions and using them for excuses.
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

12th October 2005, 04:57 PM	#2
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,588	The question "who made god" is often asked in the context of Intelligent Design, where an inference is made from human design to the design of the universe. That inference does not allow for the designer to be the creator, so it is legitimate to ask who made the designer. I agree that asking "who made God," given the traditional definition of god (such as it is), doesn't make a lot of sense. Of course, it also doesn't make sense to insist that God is forever and the universe was created. I disagree that it is clear that the universe had a beginning. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

12th October 2005, 05:08 PM	#3
Jesus Demon in Disguise Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Albany, NY Posts: 472	It's specious reasoning, for sure. It's a cop-out, because placing god in a wholly separate category (i.e. the supernatural) skirts around the necessity for logic or evidence. "There's no good evidence for god" "God is above such things!" "If everything needs a creator, who created god?" "God is above such things!" It's extraordinarily lazy and/or intellectually dishonest.
	__________________ Look here, brother, who you jivin' with that Cosmik Debris? - Frank Zappa

12th October 2005, 05:56 PM	#4
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	Originally Posted by Jesus It's specious reasoning, for sure. It's a cop-out, because placing god in a wholly separate category (i.e. the supernatural) skirts around the necessity for logic or evidence. "There's no good evidence for god" "God is above such things!" "If everything needs a creator, who created god?" "God is above such things!" It's extraordinarily lazy and/or intellectually dishonest. So... I can assume that you really AREN'T Jesus then?
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

12th October 2005, 06:05 PM	#6
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	There can be a God, no matter how you slice it. But the word God and what it means exactly is the real important part. If we can all agree that a 'force' is at work, none of us would have a problem if we decided to coin the word God, onto this force. But once we start talking about this God who creates and grants eternal life to his followers, that becomes an entirely different ballgame. Now we are talking about some mind out there that has some sort of reasoning power AND is mindful of us. Are we willing to believe that some force exists that knows what to do, exists? And then we have to ask ourselves if we see evidence that this force that might knows what to do, cares about us at all. If this thinking force does not, then what good does it do to alter our life to fit the plans of this thinking force? It is fun to ponder this. It's either this or thinking of perpetual motion machines.
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

12th October 2005, 06:03 PM	#5
Anti_Hypeman Death Dealing Doom Machine Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,011	Its a perfectly valid question I dont see the problem. If I think the only food on the planet is Peanut Butter does that make you the idiot for asking me to explain Jelly?

12th October 2005, 06:30 PM	#7
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	To resurrect (hah!) this tired but servicable syllogism: Premise 1: Every real thing requires a creator Premise 2: God is real Conclusion: God requires a creator. In order for the conclusion of this syllogism to be incorrect then one of the two premises must be incorrect. So is it Premise 1, that every real thing does not require a creator, or is it Premise 2, that God is not real? If you try to change premise 1 to "every real thing except God requires a creator", then the premise resolves to "Some real things require creators". That leaves room for other real things to not require creators, such as the universe itself. If you try to fudge with premise 2 by saying "God is not real in the same way that other things are real", then you allow that there is more than one reality, leaving room for virtually anything else to be a part of a separate reality. Thus, the word "real" becomes meaningless. So to respond to the question from the moron in the other forum, I would say, God doesn't require a creator if you are allowed to change, in mid-stream, the definition of every one of your terms to suit your whim.

12th October 2005, 09:31 PM	#8
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	In total disregard for all logic, God created himself.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

13th October 2005, 12:19 AM	#9
DevilsAdvocate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,633	Originally Posted by bpesta22 "Who made god" I'll go with what Tricky said. When we ask, "Why does anything exist?" We get, "God made it." So we ask, "Why does God exist?" We get, "Because it is God." So God->Exist and Exist->God, then Exist->Exist and God->God. So God simply "is" and therefore existance simply "is". So when we (beg) the question "Why does anything exist?", we get (in long form): Exist = God God = Exist Therefore, Exist = Exist So, everything exists because it exists. So scrap God and get straight from exist to exist. No God needed. Of course (sort of) something somehow made everything exist from nothing (at least as well as we can reasonablly understand anything). Something caused something to go "bang". Like a pool que hitting a triangle of pool balls. Let's call that something "God". Then "God" started it off, and after that it is out of "God"'s hands. The balls will roll where they may. And thier rolls will follow the laws of physics and have nothing whatsoever to do with the initiator "God". Actually "God" is not the cue ball, but rather the action of the cue ball hitting the triangle (the creator of the whole action). Once that action is completed "God" is dead and meaningless. God is dead and meaningless, at least in terms of universe creation.

13th October 2005, 12:32 AM	#10
El Greco Summer worshipper Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Παρά θιν'αλός Posts: 14,256	Don't look at me. I had nothing to do with it. I wasn't even there at the time. Honestly.
	__________________ "Robbing a bank is no crime compared to owning one" - Bertolt Brecht "Let it go and come to bed already, El Greco" - MoeFaux

13th October 2005, 03:22 AM	#11
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Is there a time when nothing could have existed, in the absolute sense? If not, then why should it require that God have a beginning?

13th October 2005, 03:38 AM	#12
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805	Originally Posted by bpesta22 "Who made god" Well when a mummy Deity and daddy Deity love each other very much ... sorry I couldn't resist
Mid Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 805

13th October 2005, 04:02 AM	#13
Fungrim Thinker Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a dark swedish mind. Posts: 149	Yes, if we agree that god has the attribute of "no beginning" then the question "who made god" makes little sense. However, I would not particularly agree. I also find it hard to think that all Christian would now know-about/use/agree-with that part of the Kalam cosmological argument either. Obviously, if in discussion, my opponent happends misstep and get intto a position where the "no beginning" attribute no longer applies I will pop the question. (And no, I don't think the Kalam argument is very good either).
	__________________ "Imagination is cheap, as long as you don't have to worry about the details." - Daniel C. Dennet

13th October 2005, 06:20 AM	#14
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Iamme There can be a God, no matter how you slice it. But the word God and what it means exactly is the real important part. Well, as has been mentioned, if complexity of reality implies a designer, then that designer is also complex. Does it not imply a designer of that designer? And so on? But if God could have always existed, why couldn't reality have always existed? And Intelligent Design still does not explain things like nipples for men, or why the tailbone is a bunch of fused, degenerate vertebra instead of a solid bone process, which evolution handles without breaking a sweat. ID must throw up its hands and say, "Well, there is a reason, we just don't know it yet." Which, for any other scientific theory, is considered as evidence against it, but proponents don't seem to care as they are afraid of being heaved into Hell if they ponder it, by their kind, loving god.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

13th October 2005, 06:57 AM	#15
Fungrim Thinker Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In a dark swedish mind. Posts: 149	Originally Posted by Beerina But if God could have always existed, why couldn't reality have always existed? That's the problem isn't it. With the risc of derailing the thread, this is what William Lane Craig (the main proponent of the Kalam cosmological argument I know of) writes: Quote: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. 2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Obviously it is point number two above that "explains" why the universe must have a beginning.
	__________________ "Imagination is cheap, as long as you don't have to worry about the details." - Daniel C. Dennet

13th October 2005, 07:18 AM	#16
Huh-What? Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 154	Why is it, when we can trace the existence of any religion back to its origin in history and thus the beginning of the "existence" of any deity of that religion to a point in time, that there are people that still want to believe that these deities created everything and it wasn't human beings that made them up?
	__________________ "Science is hard, takes a lot of work, and requires too much thinking; religion, on the other hand, laughs at hard thought and offers eternal salvation and glorious life, all for the price of a few hymns sung and some hours every Sunday being hypnotised in a pretty building." - zaayrdragon

13th October 2005, 09:04 AM	#17
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Beerina Well, as has been mentioned, if complexity of reality implies a designer, then that designer is also complex. Does it not imply a designer of that designer? Only if that reality and its designer are one and the same. However, why can't the temporal (the material Universe) be a subset of the infinite and eternal? Quote: And Intelligent Design still does not explain things like nipples for men, or why the tailbone is a bunch of fused, degenerate vertebra instead of a solid bone process, which evolution handles without breaking a sweat. ID must throw up its hands and say, "Well, there is a reason, we just don't know it yet." Which, for any other scientific theory, is considered as evidence against it, but proponents don't seem to care as they are afraid of being heaved into Hell if they ponder it, by their kind, loving god. And if you take away the "randomness" from evolution which, has no business being there in the first place, what do you get? ... The complexity of the design. Indeed, look at all the design inherent in a single seed. Is it conceivable that this foretells a similar story to the beginning of the Universe?

13th October 2005, 09:35 AM	#18
Odin Atheistic Aesir Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Asgard Posts: 808	random slightly related question- Could God create another God?
	__________________ Nothing to see here "Then we didn't evolve! The system has been feeding us THE BIG LIE!" -Jack T Chick "Educators are actually evil for refusing to teach students Nature's 4 World Time Cube." -Gene Ray "Leo Jean has attained the highest spiritual status of any person on Earth. His spirit is one of the oldest and most powerful in the universe, and is the most powerful on Earth." -Leo Jean

13th October 2005, 09:44 AM	#19
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Odin random slightly related question- Could God create another God? I am not God. Albeit the "I," which I refer to as myself, "thinks" it knows everything. So, if God created me, perhaps that's the next best thing?

13th October 2005, 10:05 AM	#20
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Originally Posted by Iacchus Is there a time when nothing could have existed, in the absolute sense? If not, then why should it require that God have a beginning? Absolute nothing? As opposed to partial nothing? You are getting tangled up in your terminology again, Iacchus. You speak of nothing as if it were something, sort of like saying "if nothing exists, what is holding it?" But if you are suggesting that there is a thing which exists forever, then it might as well be the pre-universe or the void or whatever you call it. Nothing says that it be an intelligent entity. That is just another ego-centric human superimposing his own template of what is necessary. Originally Posted by Iacchus Only if that reality and its designer are one and the same. However, why can't the temporal (the material Universe) be a subset of the infinite and eternal? That is a contradiction in terms. A designer cannot design itself. The whole flawed idea behind intelligent design is that something must preceed the thing which is designed. Or are you going to change the definition of "design" such that it no longer means "design"? Originally Posted by Iacchus And if you take away the "randomness" from evolution which, has no business being there in the first place, what do you get? ... The complexity of the design. LOL. Who are you to say what has "buisness being there" in evolution? You have shown time and time again that you have absolutely no concept of how it works. That sort of makes any statement you make about it rather suspect. Originally Posted by Iacchus Indeed, look at all the design inherent in a single seed. Is it conceivable that this foretells a similar story to the beginning of the Universe? I see no design whatsoever in a seed or in the Universe. I see patterns which can occur completely without the need of a designer. I realize that concept is beyond your grasp, more's the pity, but we can't let the inability of some individuals to understand nature to impede our search for knowledge.

13th October 2005, 10:15 AM	#21
uruk Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 5,313	If god never had a begining would mean that there would be an infinite amount of time before he created this universe. But that's irrational. And what was he doing for all that time before he created this universe? Doing nothing? Any way you cut it, god is an irrational concept.
	Last edited by uruk; 13th October 2005 at 10:32 AM.

13th October 2005, 10:22 AM	#22
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Tricky Absolute nothing? As opposed to partial nothing? You are getting tangled up in your terminology again, Iacchus. You speak of nothing as if it were something, sort of like saying "if nothing exists, what is holding it?" What, sort of like being "a little bit pregnant?" No, I'm afraid not. Quote: But if you are suggesting that there is a thing which exists forever, then it might as well be the pre-universe or the void or whatever you call it. Nothing says that it be an intelligent entity. That is just another ego-centric human superimposing his own template of what is necessary. And just think, if there was only one thing to set it in contrast with nothing, how complex this nothingness would have to be ... Quote: That is a contradiction in terms. A designer cannot design itself. The whole flawed idea behind intelligent design is that something must preceed the thing which is designed. Or are you going to change the definition of "design" such that it no longer means "design"? The thing is, we have either absolute complexity (even if non-material) or, absolute nothingness. Quote: LOL. Who are you to say what has "buisness being there" in evolution? You have shown time and time again that you have absolutely no concept of how it works. That sort of makes any statement you make about it rather suspect. So, at what point do you claim you are not a determinist? Quote: I see no design whatsoever in a seed or in the Universe. I see patterns which can occur completely without the need of a designer. I realize that concept is beyond your grasp, more's the pity, but we can't let the inability of some individuals to understand nature to impede our search for knowledge. A seed is self-contained. And everything that "unfolds," unfolds from that seed.
	Last edited by Iacchus; 13th October 2005 at 10:24 AM.

13th October 2005, 10:27 AM	#23
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by Iacchus Is there a time when nothing could have existed, in the absolute sense? If not, then why should it require that God have a beginning? If God doesn't have a beginning, then the universe doesn't need a beginning, so God becomes redundant.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

13th October 2005, 10:31 AM	#24
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by uruk If god never had a begining would mean that would be an infinite amount of time before he created this universe. But that's irrational. And what was he doing for all that before he created this universe? Doing nothing? Any way you cut it, god is an irrational concept. Is there anything which is the least bit "uncomplex" about existence? So, was there ever a time when nothing (in the absolute sense) ever existed? Do you deem this to be an irrational concept too?

13th October 2005, 10:38 AM	#25
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Taffer If God doesn't have a beginning, then the universe doesn't need a beginning, so God becomes redundant. And, can you fathom the beginning of existence? And no, I'm not referring to the Big Bang here. How could this be, unless it were set in contrast to absolutely nothing?

13th October 2005, 10:40 AM	#26
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,884	OK I confess, I made God. And I'm really sorry for all the trouble He's caused. But if you want to sue me, you'll have to contact my lawyers.
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

13th October 2005, 10:59 AM	#27
uruk Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 5,313	Originally Posted by Iacchus Is there anything which is the least bit "uncomplex" about existence? So, was there ever a time when nothing (in the absolute sense) ever existed? Do you deem this to be an irrational concept too? "absolute nothing" would mean that there would be no time either because time is "something". Absolute nothing is irrational. But that does not mean there is a designer or god creating anything. We are locked in a box in this universe. There is no before or outside of this universe that we can rationaly describe. If god exists, he clearly exists "outside" of this univers (otherwise we'd be able to test or observe him) and that would make him irrational. He would not follow or obey any of the rules or laws which govern this existance (i.e. physics, logic). There is no means by which we would be able to understand him rationaly because we only have the rules and references of this existance to comprehend him by.

13th October 2005, 11:05 AM	#28
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by Iacchus And, can you fathom the beginning of existence? And no, I'm not referring to the Big Bang here. How could this be, unless it were set in contrast to absolutely nothing? As uruk said, if God exists, he is outside the universe.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

13th October 2005, 11:22 AM	#29
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Taffer As uruk said, if God exists, he is outside the universe. Meaning He is immaterial, with respect to the (material) Universe we live in currently.

13th October 2005, 11:36 AM	#30
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Originally Posted by Iacchus Meaning He is immaterial, with respect to the (material) Universe we live in currently. And thus does not interact with anything in our universe, and is thus not needed for the running of the universe. Try again.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.

13th October 2005, 12:28 PM	#32
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Originally Posted by Iacchus What, sort of like being "a little bit pregnant?" No, I'm afraid not. So you admit that there is no different in "nothingness" versus "absolute nothingness"? Then why do you keep adding that unnecessary word? Originally Posted by Iacchus And just think, if there was only one thing to set it in contrast with nothing, how complex this nothingness would have to be ... Just think how much more lucid you would be if you tried to use words according to their definitions rather than what you imagine them to mean... Originally Posted by Iacchus The thing is, we have either absolute complexity (even if non-material) or, absolute nothingness. Again, your use of the word "absolute" is nonsensical. In fact, the whole sentence is nonsensical. The vacuous pronouncements you love to make regarding your perceived dichotomy of reality mean nothing to anyone other than yourself. Originally Posted by Iacchus So, at what point do you claim you are not a determinist? At the point that I know the meaning of "determininst", a point that you have apparently not yet reached. Originally Posted by Iacchus A seed is self-contained. And everything that "unfolds," unfolds from that seed. Completely incorrect. Seeds require external things, such as warmth and water to germinate. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, but then, that's kind of par for the course for you.

13th October 2005, 01:57 PM	#33
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Taffer And thus does not interact with anything in our universe, and is thus not needed for the running of the universe. Try again. Most folks would claim that thought -- which, accompanies the realm of spirit -- is not physical. Therefore if God affects us, He affects us more in the way we think, and everything else by means of the subtleties thereof.

13th October 2005, 02:02 PM	#34
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by Tricky Completely incorrect. Seeds require external things, such as warmth and water to germinate. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, but then, that's kind of par for the course for you. Yes, and the Universe would require another "medium" (God) to interact with. The Universe of its own accord could not stand.
	Last edited by Iacchus; 13th October 2005 at 02:37 PM.

13th October 2005, 02:04 PM	#35
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	Originally Posted by uruk Yep. That would mean god is "immaterial" with respect to everything. Everything "physical" that is ...

13th October 2005, 02:11 PM	#36
Taffer Shén Tōu Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: 台中 Posts: 4,531	Iacchus, something that is Immaterial cannot, by its very definition, interact with something that is material. If God is immaterial, he cannot interact with anything in the universe.
	__________________ Die Dulce Fruere "Whereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be silent." BUILDS YOUR ROOFS OF DEAD WOOD. BUILDS YOUR WALLS OF DEAD STONE. BUILDS YOUR DREAMS OF DEAD THOUGHTS. COMES CRYING LAUGHING SINGING BACK TO LIFE, TAKES WHAT YOU STEAL, AND PULLS THE SKINS FROM YOUR DEAD BONES SHRIEKING. -- Clay tablet in an abandoned Trickster temple.