What created God?

Originally posted by Nicksten
....or God created it all.

I like your explanation given. I just see God's hand in all of it.

"...Or God created it all"

Indeed but "it all" IS God.

God is creation.
God is existence.
God is love.
God is you as you are a part of God. God isn't in you, you are in God.
etc

God is God.

Originally posted by tomtom232
"...Or God created it all"

Indeed but "it all" IS God.

God is creation.
God is existence.
God is love.
God is you as you are a part of God. God isn't in you, you are in God.
etc

God is God.

I agree.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe, you should go above the basic level of logic and learn the
intermediate level and then the advanced level of logic.

P.S. Do these lessons.
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/advlogic/

RJHinds I'm well acquainted with logic thankyou very much - more so than you ;]

Originally posted by Agerg
RJHinds I'm well acquainted with logic thankyou very much - more so than you ;]

Eexxccuussee Mmee.

Originally posted by Nicksten
I thought i read it just wrong but it looks like i haven't as you have written it again....refering to God creating "itself", you probably mean "Himself"... But that is another argument.

I too follow the basics of logic but it is obvious that we see something different. Something that just happens like the creation of God or the earth can not be "fixed" false....and that by just using pure logic, and we're not even near technical yet 😉

I see no reason to regard your god (capitalised) as anything other than a fictional construct. As such I have no reason to deferentially refer to it as "Him". Evolution is a process, not an account of how the process started. For all I know the FSM could have started it.
The point of contention we have in this thread is whether it is logically possible for a god (any god - not just yours) to create itself. I say it cannot because again, if there exists a point where a god is to be created then the thing creating said god cannot be the thing being created (since it already exists such that bringing about creation can happen). No matter how often you say this is too technical the statement reduces to a conjunction of A and ¬A - i.e god exists (A) such that it can create something and simultaneously god does not exist (¬A) such that it can be created. I have sound reason to throw out the "argument" at this point,

Finally I've seen numerous "proofs" (pay attention to the cheapening quotes) that evolution is false and I'm neither impressed nor even slightly persuaded by the arguments of those who don't even understand what it is they attempt to disprove.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Eexxccuussee Mmee.

You're excused.

The bible says God always existed; but there are 2 different contexts, aren't there?

One context is, in all the time since existence as we know it has existed, God has always existed.

In the other context, God has always existed since anything has existed, ever, since before the universe and all the way back to.... whenever.

Can we be completely sure which context the bible is using?

Originally posted by sumydid
The bible says God always existed; but there are 2 different contexts, aren't there?

One context is, in all the time since existence as we know it has existed, God has always existed.

In the other context, God has always existed since anything has existed, ever, since before the universe and all the way back to.... whenever.

Can we be completely sure which context the bible is using?

My Sunday school teacher must have been right!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yeah, that's what I learned too. Take it or leave it. And you better
take it if you know what's good for you.

To this day I can recite Luther's Small Catechism verbatim. 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
I see no reason to regard your god (capitalised) as anything other than a fictional construct. As such I have no reason to deferentially refer to it as "Him". Evolution is a process, not an account of how the process started. For all I know the FSM could have started it.
The point of contention we have in this thread is whether it is logically possible for a ...[text shortened]... y the arguments of those who don't even understand what it is they attempt to disprove.

This is true in a finite existence but if existence is infinite then the point of creation can be before and after creation. Every point of creation was created by a point of creation before and created the point of creation after.

If existence is finite does it make sense to use an infinite numerical system to try and explain it?

Do you believe infinity?

Does existence even parallel spacetime?

Does essence precede existence or does existence precede essence?

Or does essence precede existence precede essence precede existence etc?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't think there is any escape from circular reasoning in posing that you need a first cause,
calling it god, then claiming god had a cause, and that god was god's cause.

I don't think there is any solution to what the 'first cause' is in a finite line of causality.

And putting god in the mix doesn't help at all.

So if you have no answer to be fantastic to link
here if I could find it...
Must remember to bookmark things....

Why does creation have to be "the beginning?"

By calling something infinite you are calling it limitless, boundless, without end, all encompassing etc. If this limitless "thing" has sentience then it is God. If you say it doesn't have sentience then you have put a limit on it and it is finite. In conclusion, you can believe in a finite existence or an infinite existence and if you believe in a finite existence then you don't believe anything physics has theorized since it used a numerical system based on infinity to explain these same theories. It used a numerical or "logical" system based on God to explain its theories.

Originally posted by tomtom232
This is true in a finite existence but if existence is infinite then the point of creation can be before and after creation. Every point of creation was created by a point of creation before and created the point of creation after.

If existence is finite does it make sense to use an infinite numerical system to try and explain it?

Do you believe infi ...[text shortened]... nce precede essence?

Or does essence precede existence precede essence precede existence etc?

This is true in a finite existence but if existence is infinite then the point of creation can be before and after creation.
Your argument with "circular" time or whatever still does not allow a basic problem to go away. Stop at any point on that temporal construct of yours where creation occurs and ask

Does a god capable of creating something exist presently?

No? Ah well then that God won't be creating itself no matter how many times and how far we go round this "time loop" - it doesn't exist

Yes? then what the hell is it doing trying to create itself !?

As for your question I expect we live in a granular universe and that actual infinities don't exist.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Why does creation have to be "the beginning?"

By calling something infinite you are calling it limitless, boundless, without end, all encompassing etc. If this limitless "thing" has sentience then it is God. If you say it doesn't have sentience then you have put a limit on it and it is finite. In conclusion, you can believe in a finite existence or an theories. It used a numerical or "logical" system based on God to explain its theories.

and if you believe in a finite existence then you don't believe anything physics has theorized since it used a numerical system based on infinity to explain these same theories. It used a numerical or "logical" system based on God to explain its theories.
Numerical system based on infinity?...which numeral system is that then!?? If you're going to start talking about calculus btw then I pre-empt this with the statement that even if actual infinities and infinitesimals don't exist, at some point we eventually stop approaching some limit, step back, take it all in and say..."I'll be damned if I can see any difference between what's happening here, and what I expect would happen if infinities did exist."

Originally posted by tomtom232
If God created the universe then what created God?

Well, I propose that God did. What, you say? That is laughably circular!

It is circular but not laughably so.

Just read on.

Take an infinite line, we'll call it eternity.

<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

The absolute value of a ...[text shortened]... s forward as a fact just as a possible and interesting answer to a controversial question.

If God created the universe then what created God?

No one. God is uncreated and eternal life.

Are you diminished in some way if this is true ?
Does such a truth dampen your desire to search out fascinating scientific discoveries ?

How does God being the uncreated and eternal God pose some affront to your humanity ? That is if it does ?

If such a God so loves us, would God's being created by something else, improve the quality of that love ?

This uncreated One put on created humanity in Jesus Christ. Isn't that enough of an empathetic, sympathetic identification with our finititude ?

I consider what Hebrews says: "Since the children have shared in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who has the might of death, that is, the devil." (Heb. 2:14)

So God has an attribute which we cannot have - He is uncreated. He always was. Isn't it enough though, that He partook of blood and flesh in the incarnation in Jesus Christ ?

Originally posted by tomtom232
"Calling it God"


Why is this a problem? If I define God as being everything that ever is and was then ther IS proof of God existing. You are living proof, breathing proof, seeing proof, standing on proof. The question then is not "does God exist" it is "Does God have sentience?" and if you asked me this I would ask you "Are you sentient?" assuming you ...[text shortened]... but of course saying yes means that there is a God and he does indeed have sentience.

Wow is your logic flawed.

Of course if you define god to mean everything then of course god exists, but the word has become meaningless.

And no you can't argue that because I am sentient, and I am part of everything, that everything is sentient.

Which is what your argument boils down to.