If God exists, who invented him?

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?

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

But people who actually read up on and try to understand the theory know that A) nothing actually went bang, an initial dense energy state expanded "into" time/space, that this initial state wasn't necessarily under any time/space constraints and may have been under constraints of an entirely different sort to what we find in our universe and C) that none of this implies god and to start with the idea that a god must exist and then go through the evidence latching on characteristics to such a being to try to account for effects not known when the god was first made up is incredibly faulty logic, not to mention just plain dishonest.

b318isp

JimiTime wrote: »

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

I can accept this point, so long as we are speculating that there was a creator or creative process.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

No, of course there isn't. This response has been promoted specifically because there isn't one.

JimiTime wrote: »

Baseless derision and scoffing would be what it has caused tbh.

Well, you can hardly blame people for laughing if the reply to a fundamental problem in an argument is to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la, doesn't apply to me"

Incidentally, the same uberlogic "proves" the existence of every other god. In fact, it "proves" just about anything you want at all, so it's not an argument that I would have thought most religious people would be pushing all that hard.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

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

WTF? If we dont know anything about what the constraints could be, then we cant logically say whether god can or cant be constrained, thats the point. If we dont know, then we cant say either way whether he can be logically constrained or not. Seeing as you were the only one asserting that he wasn't and every response was a challenge to that logic, the only one in the wrong was you and you inadvertently admitted it in your previous post.

splashthecash

dclane wrote: »

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?

Chuck Norris

ShooterSF

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

That sounds so reasonable except you ignore the usual cause of said question being asked by atheists which is "Who created the universe?"
The question is not asked to disprove god but rather to point out that like god to a believer, an atheist can just as happily accept the universe could have existed without a creator.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

You're lucky I like the spanish flea! It was the saving grace of an otherwise horrible post!

b318isp

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But people who actually read up on and try to understand the theory know that A) nothing actually went bang, an initial dense energy state expanded "into" time/space, that this initial state wasn't necessarily under any time/space constraints and may have been under constraints of an entirely different sort to what we find in our universe and C) that none of this implies god and to start with the idea that a god must exist and then go through the evidence latching on characteristics to such a being to try to account for effects not known when the god was first made up is incredibly faulty logic, not to mention just plain dishonest.

My take is that there is no current reasonable explanation at all for what went on at the moment of or before the big bang. No reasonable consensus can be reached.

Imperfect explanations are either in the realms of speculative cosmology theory or, at the risk of misquoting, "Any sufficiently advanced not-understood technology physical process is indistinguishable from magic God."

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, this is totally irrelevant.

Why, because it postulates a god that has to be subject to the universe limitations? Come off it Jimi, dont act the eejit.

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

It is a justification for why god isn't subject to the limitations that the start of universe is supposed to be subject to, so it does try to answer those questions.

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

If this is all it does, then all it has created is a moot point. Neither your side no mine knows what constraints are on X, so neither your side nor mine can claim whether or not it is constrained. No-one here has claimed that it is constrained, they have been pointing out your faulty logic in claiming that X couldn't be constrained, essentially based on the logic you have detailed here. You have successfully argued against your own "logic" where you claimed that god couldn't be under the constraints of our universe by arguing that if we dont know what the constraints are, then we cant say if they apply or not. Well done.

Mark Hamill

b318isp wrote: »

My take is that there is no current reasonable explanation at all for what went on at the moment of or before the big bang. No reasonable consensus can be reached.

Imperfect explanations are either in the realms of speculative cosmology theory or, at the risk of misquoting, "Any sufficiently advanced not-understood technology physical process is indistinguishable from magic God."

I agree, this is essentially the only honest answer to the question we have at the moment: we dont know. Which is why I have been arguing against Jimi's logic which claimed knowledge that we dont have-that god couldn't logically be under the constraints of the universe.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

No, of course there isn't. This response has been promoted specifically because there isn't one.

Simply your opinion. As I said earlier, its simply a scoffing sarcastic 'How convenient' accusation. Meaningless TBH.

Well, you can hardly blame people for laughing if the reply to a fundamental problem in an argument is to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la, doesn't apply to me"

Again, thats what I'm talking about. Its simply baseless derision. That you can't rebut it (Which doesn't actually matter anyway), just seems to stick in peoples craw. Its quite odd.

Incidentally, the same uberlogic "proves" the existence of every other god.

Firstly, it DOESN'T prove anything. And secondly, it does indeed apply to ANY concept of a creator outside of its creation.

In fact, it "proves" just about anything you want at all, so it's not an argument that I would have thought most religious people would be pushing all that hard.

Its not an argument to begin with. It simply points out to someone who demands a materialist constraint on a creator who is outside of its creation, that it does not follow that a creator must be limited to the same laws as its creation.

I think you have exemplified the issue. So many mix up what this explanation is actually there to explain.