Who created God?

[Shornaal]

Read a post in the Christian discussion forum that made me think(tim_from_pa)
Complex things could evolve if an intelligence guided it, but not by chance. That's my big issue.
If life can't exist without intervention from God, was there an even greater being that created God?Couldn't find any biblical text concerning the universe before God and my local priest is basically an atheist so I thought you were my best chance of finding answers.

 

[treeoflife]

(Shornaal;52964)
Read a post in the Christian discussion forum that made me thinkIf life can't exist without intervention from God, was there an even greater being that created God?Couldn't find any biblical text concerning the universe before God and my local priest is basically an atheist so I thought you were my best chance of finding answers.
If something or someone created God, He isn't God.We pray to the MOST HIGH God. There are none higher.Creator of HEAVEN and of Earth. ALL mighty, ALL powerful, ALL knowing. Were you wanting Bible references for this?

 

[Jordan]

He's right Shornaal.

 

[Christina]

(Shornaal;52964)
Read a post in the Christian discussion forum that made me thinkIf life can't exist without intervention from God, was there an even greater being that created God?Couldn't find any biblical text concerning the universe before God and my local priest is basically an atheist so I thought you were my best chance of finding answers.
Dont know if you were trying to be funny but you made me laughyour priest is an atheist?

Anyway I did find a good answer to your questionthough the one given are good alsoWho created God? Where did God come from?"Answer: The atheist Bertrand Russell wrote in his book "Why I am Not a Christian" that if it is true that all things need a cause then God must also need a cause. He concluded from this that if God needed a cause then God was not God (and if God is not God then of course there is no God). This was basically a slightly more sophisticated form of the childlike question, "Who made God?" Even a child knows that things do not come from nothing, so if God is a "something" then He must have a cause as well, right?The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have odor, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created, or come into existence, or are caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.I am that I am.How do we know this? Well, we know that from nothing, nothing comes. So if there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence then nothing would have ever come to exist. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been existing. That ever-existing thing is what we call God.

 

[Shornaal]

(kriss;52978)
Dont know if you were trying to be funny but you made me laughyour priest is an atheist?

Anyway I did find a good answer to your questionthough the one given are good alsoWho created God? Where did God come from?"Answer: The atheist Bertrand Russell wrote in his book "Why I am Not a Christian" that if it is true that all things need a cause then God must also need a cause. He concluded from this that if God needed a cause then God was not God (and if God is not God then of course there is no God). This was basically a slightly more sophisticated form of the childlike question, "Who made God?" Even a child knows that things do not come from nothing, so if God is a "something" then He must have a cause as well, right?The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have odor, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created, or come into existence, or are caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.I am that I am.How do we know this? Well, we know that from nothing, nothing comes. So if there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence then nothing would have ever come to exist. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been existing. That ever-existing thing is what we call God.
Couldn't that law of "always having existed" also be used by the atheists to claim organic life has always existed?I agree with the notion that God has been forever as it's the only logical solution. I find that as I get more answers and information about God the more more I'm drawn towards christianity.

 

[Christina]

(Shornaal;52979)
Couldn't that law of "always having existed" also be used by the atheists to claim organic life has always existed?I agree with the notion that God has been forever as it's the only logical solution. I find that as I get more answers and information about God the more more I'm drawn towards christianity.
No because nothing is nothing organic matter had to have a begining but then anybody could argue anything faith in God is a matter of believing in the something with a purpose a design a reasonaccidental is just lack of any other explanation

 

[Lunar]

kriss: Your post claims that Russell's argument "falsely sneaks in the assumption that God is in the category of things that require causes."Why must the universe be in the category of things that require causes? Isn't it just as plausible to believe that the universe is uncaused as to believe that God is uncaused? The proof says that there has to be something that has always existed, but why is it assumed that this thing is God? Why not the universe?

 

[adren@line]

Organic matter is simply energy. If God exists, then God is energy as well, and hence no different from organic matter.Everything that "exists" is energy. If it isnt energy then it is space, which is nothingness.So the only way a God can exist if this God is energy, and hence this energy came into being just as everything else did after the big-bang.Further, there is no difference between "something" and "nothing". If we have no visible matter (which makes up around 3% of the universe), then we have energy, if we have no energy (which can neither be created nor destroyed, and hence impossible), we have space, which is nothingess, but "something" none-the-less since it can be percieved (and anything that can be percieved is indeed "something). So one can ask "who created space"?The fact is that energy is eternal. If God exists, then God is energy as well. There is nothing else for God to be "made of". If God is energy, then God is bound by the laws that govern energy.So to state that God is not in the same category as things that are created is false, since "anything" that exists is indeed energy, sans space.Unless of course you believe that God consists of something other than energy, a physical impossibility. And if you do believe this, then id like to know what "it" is.So in the end, we simply end up with e=mc2. We know that energy is eternal, and that energy transitions from state to state and is every changing. If God exists, then God would be a fixed-mass of energy, which exists independently of other forms of energy, which is impossible. When all is said and done, the idea of God does not answer the questions of the universe in any reasonable fashion. In-fact, such answers involving God contradict science and offer no real solution. Hence, the idea of God by those who believe in God shouldn't be applied to such questions. This isnt to say that a belief in God is bad, far from it. But such belief serves a different role in ones life.

 

[Christina]

All the laws of Nature and the universe have rules whether we are taking gravity vs no gravity or the way positive energy reacts to negative ect. Every single Law of Nature has some law it follows or there would be total Chaos in all things God is not the author of confusion, everything from the visible to the invisible parts of the universe follow its own laws. Science is but the study of discoving these laws and how they work.All this was by accident????It is our contention God created everything that's why there is not random chaos in the universe. As I said above the only other explanation is it all came together, by accident that's not an explanation its a lack of any other explanation.

 

[waquinas]

(Lunar;53006)
kriss: Your post claims that Russell's argument "falsely sneaks in the assumption that God is in the category of things that require causes."Why must the universe be in the category of things that require causes? Isn't it just as plausible to believe that the universe is uncaused as to believe that God is uncaused? The proof says that there has to be something that has always existed, but why is it assumed that this thing is God? Why not the universe?
Kriss answered well.As already stated the universe we observe is one of causes. Therefore the universe cannot be "uncaused" or nothing would exist. Something caused it, and that is the beginning of an understanding of the Being we call God.

 

[Lunar]

(kriss)
It is our contention God created everything that's why there is not random chaos in the universe. As I said above the only other explanation is it all came together, by accident that's not an explanation its a lack of any other explanation.
kriss:What you are doing is looking at how the rules of the unvierse seem to fit together in orderly fashion and assuming that there must have been an intelligent agency to make them as such. I would say this is a bit like someone looking at a map of the United States and saying "Wow, it is amazing how all of these rivers happen to be along state borders! Some intelligent agency must have made it so those rivers coincided with the state borders!"This person has obviously got it backwards. The location of the rivers is simply how things are. They had to be some way, and that's how they turned out. The state borders were created, by humans, in accordance with the rivers, not the other way around. Likewise, the state of the natural universe wasn't created to fit scientific laws. The laws were created, by humans, to fit the universe. Had the state of the natural universe been otherwise, we would have different laws. Our laws appear orderly because they were designed by humans to account for the state of the natural universe in a way that is maximally orderly and comprihensible.So to sum it up: The order you see in the laws of science is the order imbued into it by humans attempting to explain the state of the universe. The state of the universe itself is actually full of chaos.(waquinas;53284)
Kriss answered well.As already stated the universe we observe is one of causes. Therefore the universe cannot be "uncaused" or nothing would exist.
This is incorrect, because it commits the "fallacy of composition." The fallacy of composition is when one assumes that, because something is true of each part of a whole, that thing must be true of the whole itself as well. For example, if we were in a classroom of twenty people, it may be true of everyone in the class that they weigh less than 250 pounds. But that does not mean that everyone in the class put together weighs less than 250 pounds.The same is true here. We see that the constituent parts of the universe have causes, but that does not mean that the universe itself must have a cause.

 

[adren@line]

(waquinas;53284)
Kriss answered well.As already stated the universe we observe is one of causes. Therefore the universe cannot be "uncaused" or nothing would exist. Something caused it, and that is the beginning of an understanding of the Being we call God.
This is all based on the assumption of linear time.Linear time = event A leads to event B, and then possible leads to event C and so forth.The idea that time is linear is not a fact. Its more-so an illussion than anything else.Hence, cause and effect are based on the assumption of linear-time being absolute and true, which it isnt.If one considers all mainstream theories of physics, we have a few other possibilities:1. Time exists in two dimensions, not one. Dont ask me to explain it, just google it.2. Time is cyclical, not linear. The events of the universe repeat themselves over and over again.3. Time is an illusion, and does not exist at all. The most probable (IMO) is cyclical universe theory. It states that universes die and are reborn, over and over again ad-infinitum. One universe and its energy become another.Therefore the cause of the cause of the cause is the cause of the cause, etc, and hence there is no real cause and time is an illusion.problem solved.This does not negate the idea of God though, depending on how you define God. If God is simply a "thing" that exists in space and answers prayers, then there is nothing inherently un-scientific or illogical about such a notion. However if one assigns first-cause attributes to God, then the idea of God becomes far more convoluted and illogical.

 

[waquinas]

As I understood physics (and it has been a while) an infinite series of regressions (cyclic universes) is not possible, you would need a starting point in that scenario from an energy standpoint. And what little I have read about the theory, the closer one gets to a singularity and the instant beyond it, the rules of physics go out the window. So the physists is in no better a position than the theologian; IOW at that point it becomes a matter of faith to him that cyclical universes are possible and that it explains it all.

 

[Lunar]

(waquinas)
So the physists is in no better a position than the theologian; IOW at that point it becomes a matter of faith to him that cyclical universes are possible and that it explains it all.
So you are admitting that belief in God as the creator is unfounded, and purely a matter of faith?Also, do you have anything to say about how saying the universe must have a cause commits the fallacy of composition?

 

[adren@line]

(waquinas;53437)
As I understood physics (and it has been a while) an infinite series of regressions (cyclic universes) is not possible, you would need a starting point in that scenario from an energy standpoint. And what little I have read about the theory, the closer one gets to a singularity and the instant beyond it, the rules of physics go out the window. So the physists is in no better a position than the theologian; IOW at that point it becomes a matter of faith to him that cyclical universes are possible and that it explains it all.
Naa, cyclical theory does away with a starting point. That is the very purpose of the theory. Basically universes are reborn through an infinite sequence of singularities. The basic scenario is that a universe is born through a big-bang, evolves and develops, and over the course of a trillion years or so (recent estimate as to the age of a universe) it eventually "dies" in a sort of heat death or a cold freeze, in a rather chaotic (2nd law of thermodynamics) sequence of events.Eventually everything instantly "resets" into a singularity and the process is repeated again. If string theory is correct then everything resets when two branes make contact (super-strings of energy in which universes exist in/on). The laws of physics only break down during the instant of the singularity (which lasts for something to the effect of a millionth of a second), but this breakdown is part of the larger mathematical model.If cyclical theory is right, then this process has been occurring for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, or should I say infinitely.The idea that time had a beginning 13-16 billion years ago and that was the start of everything is fairly outdated.

 

[verzanumi24]

(Shornaal;52964)
Read a post in the Christian discussion forum that made me thinkIf life can't exist without intervention from God, was there an even greater being that created God?Couldn't find any biblical text concerning the universe before God and my local priest is basically an atheist so I thought you were my best chance of finding answers.
God says.Deuteronomy 32:39 (BBE) 39 See now, I myself am he; there is no other god but me: giver of death and life, wounding and making well: and no one has power to make you free from my hand. God is eternal, which means that He has no beginning or an end. If God owed His existence to another, then He would not be whom He says He is…He says He is God and no one is able to deliver them from His hand, He is the giver of life. The problem is not did some else made God, the problem is in not believing what He says about Himself. Generally speaking when the carnal mind (a mind that is obsessed with the physical) has a problem in terms of relating to God, rather than see it self as the problem (its way of thinking) it seeks to put the burden on God. We even see this often in the way we relate to certain substance. We often talk about the drug problem, when it’s really human beings that have a problem with drugs, for example. The problem is always out side of us rather than the problem being caused by our way of thinking. One cannot have any hope of getting over a personal difficult problem or situation, if the individual keeps blaming someone else for their problem. So if one doughts that God exist or that He is without beginning, it’s because the individual is filled with dought, and that is not God’s problem but that individual.It is not for God to prove that He is whom He says He is, it's for us to believe that He is whom He says He is.It ‘s very interesting that human beings put more faith in other human beings, that are fallible and corruptible, but the God of the universe whom have been proven to be perfectly incorruptible and faithful they have a problem with.

 

[Lunar]

(verzanumi24;53912)
We even see this often in the way we relate to certain substance. We often talk about the drug problem, when it’s really human beings that have a problem with drugs, for example. The problem is always out side of us rather than the problem being caused by our way of thinking. One cannot have any hope of getting over a personal difficult problem or situation, if the individual keeps blaming someone else for their problem. So if one doughts that God exist or that He is without beginning, it’s because the individual is filled with dought, and that is not God’s problem but that individual.
(Assuming that you mean doubt...) What's wrong with doubt? Christians doubt the existence of other Gods aside from their own, so why is doubt so terrible?

 

[verzanumi24]

(Lunar;53937)
(Assuming that you mean doubt...) What's wrong with doubt? Christians doubt the existence of other Gods aside from their own, so why is doubt so terrible?
Well I can't speak for others but as far as I am concern I do not doubt (yes that was a spelling error) the existence of other gods, I know that no other god exist (that's way beyond doubt) besides the God of the Bible. Now to the question of doubt, if you cannot see that having doubt is the problem, then you have a problem, which is doubt. Doubt cloud's the mind; it prevents what would otherwise make something crystal clear not so. And besides, the faith that one would need to believe that God exist, and that He is whom He says He is, has to come from God Himself....that kind of faith is imparted by God to the individual.I cannot make you believe, nor do I want to, all I can do is speak God's word to you, and if He wants to reveal His truth to you He will. But if not, then you might have to wait after the second resurrection, if you die before Jesus second coming.

 

[Sola_Scriptura]

Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."God never had a beginning. He is the everlasting God. Isaiah 40:28 "Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom."He was never created. He is the Creator.Acts 17:24-29 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill."

 

[univac]

This will help you understand where God came from.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQTALEIMRKY