Who created God?

[waquinas]

(Lunar;53488)
So you are admitting that belief in God as the creator is unfounded, and purely a matter of faith?
Nope, nor did I say the physicts beliefs regarding the cyclical universe are unfounded. The point I was trying to make is that approaching a singularity, the physicists is taking it as a matter of faith that x-theory or y-theory explains what is going on there. He cannot know that it is in fact true. That position then is similar to the theologian or any believer saying there are things we cannot know which are taken as being true as a matter of faith. Nothing more.
Also, do you have anything to say about how saying the universe must have a cause commits the fallacy of composition?
First, am not sure why any one would think the universe does not have a cause. Even the physicists promoting a cyclical universe are claiming a cause (at least for this cycle). I can see why some do not want to see that cause as God.Am also thinking the fallacy of inference does not apply in this case, not the way normal attributes of things could apply. The cause of the universe must lie outside the set that is the universe, not as a part of it. Cause is something external to a thing, not a part of it. Nothing causes itself. One thing can cause another, but the composition of any given thing in the universe does not include its cause. So in speaking of the universe, in that sense, it cannot be possible to commit the fallacy of composition for an attribute that is not only not part of the set but also not part of the composition of some or all the things in the set (the universe). The "fallacy of composition" would come from inferring traits inherent in the COMPOSITION of the parts onto the traits of the composition of the whole. (Ex: Fire ants bite and sting. Bull ants bite and sting. All ants bite and sting.) In the case of "cause", it is not an attribute or part of the composition of anything. The other important point to be made here is that we are talking about a trait (cause) which one side says all things have (including the universe) and the other side says ONLY one thing does not have (God). I could see it being a fallacy of composition if I said because everything including the universe has a cause, God must have a cause (as someone has already posted here)

 

[waquinas]

(Lunar;53488)
So you are admitting that belief in God as the creator is unfounded, and purely a matter of faith?
Nope, nor did I say the physicts beliefs regarding the cyclical universe are unfounded. The point I was trying to make is that approaching a singularity, the physicists is taking it as a matter of faith that x-theory or y-theory explains what is going on there. He cannot know that it is in fact true. That position then is similar to the theologian or any believer saying there are things we cannot know which are taken as being true as a matter of faith. Nothing more.
Also, do you have anything to say about how saying the universe must have a cause commits the fallacy of composition?
First, am not sure why any one would think the universe does not have a cause. Even the physicists promoting a cyclical universe are claiming a cause (at least for this cycle). I can see why some do not want to see that cause as God.Am also thinking the fallacy of inference does not apply in this case, not the way normal attributes of things could apply. The cause of the universe must lie outside the set that is the universe, not as a part of it. Cause is something external to a thing, not a part of it. Nothing causes itself. One thing can cause another, but the composition of any given thing in the universe does not include its cause. So in speaking of the universe, in that sense, it cannot be possible to commit the fallacy of composition for an attribute that is not only not part of the set but also not part of the composition of some or all the things in the set (the universe). The "fallacy of composition" would come from inferring traits inherent in the COMPOSITION of the parts onto the traits of the composition of the whole. (Ex: Fire ants bite and sting. Bull ants bite and sting. All ants bite and sting.) In the case of "cause", it is not an attribute or part of the composition of anything. The other important point to be made here is that we are talking about a trait (cause) which one side says all things have (including the universe) and the other side says ONLY one thing does not have (God). I could see it being a fallacy of composition if I said because everything including the universe has a cause, God must have a cause (as someone has already posted here)

 

[Lunar]

(waquinas;55734)
Am also thinking the fallacy of inference does not apply in this case, not the way normal attributes of things could apply. The cause of the universe must lie outside the set that is the universe, not as a part of it. Cause is something external to a thing, not a part of it. Nothing causes itself. One thing can cause another, but the composition of any given thing in the universe does not include its cause.
You misunderstand me. I am not claiming that the universe is self-caused. I am claiming that it simply has no cause. Causation is a concept which implies purely within the boundaries of time. We see one thing occur at one point in time, another thing occur at another later point in time, and may conclude that the first thing caused the second. But it does not make any sense to look at the entirety of space-time and ask what its cause was. We would need something outside of space time - but speaking of causation concerning something outside of space time is utterly nonsensical.(waquinas)
The other important point to be made here is that we are talking about a trait (cause) which one side says all things have (including the universe) and the other side says ONLY one thing does not have (God).
Nope, that is where you're misunderstanding me. I am saying the universe does not have a cause. The universe is simply the canvas within which causation occurs.(waquinas)
I could see it being a fallacy of composition if I said because everything including the universe has a cause, God must have a cause (as someone has already posted here)
That actually isn't an instance of the fallacy of composition unless you believe that God is the universe.

 

[Wakka]

It's simple. God is outside of the dimension of time, that is because He created it. Without time, one isn't subject to age or death. Therefore, God had always existed. The problem is that our finite minds aren't able to comprehend it.

 

[Lunar]

(Wakka;55828)
The problem is that our finite minds aren't able to comprehend it.
This argument has always puzzled me. It is a straight-faced admission that God as the creator of the universe does not actually have any explanatory value. It is the explanatory equivalent of admitting that you don'tknow what caused the origin of the universe. It simply traces the problem back one step further, thus making it unnecessarily complicated.Christian answer: "God exists outside time and is eternal, so he created the universe." (How could something exist outside time?) "I don't comprehend it."Answer from ignorance: "I don't comprehend it."What does God do as an explainer here? It's just another black box.