Who created God?

[Madhuri]

Well there are 4 possibilities.

1. A god came into existence all by itself with no cause, and then brought the universe into existence.
2. A god came has always existed with no cause, and then brought the universe into existence.
3. The universe came into existence all by itself with no cause.
4. The universe has always existed with no cause.

Considering that all of the above involve something existing without a cause, I don't see how any of them are any less of a mindf**k than the others.

The whole idea, though, that something always existing negates the incredulity of why it would exist in the first place doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Good post, I agree, especially with the area I bolded.

 

[Hawkins]

Arguably, cause and effect are on the axis/plane of time. And only those bound by time need a cause. God is outside of time, He doesn't need a cause to exist.

 

[jmvizanko]

Arguably, cause and effect are on the axis/plane of time. And only those bound by time need a cause. God is outside of time, He doesn't need a cause to exist.

Hence my statement that why would he exist in the first place...

The fact that something exists instead of something different or nothing existing is the mindf**k here, not how time applies to that something.

 

[Hawkins]

Hence my statement that why would he exist in the first place...

The fact that something exists instead of something different or nothing existing is the mindf**k here, not how time applies to that something.

'First place' doesn't even exist outside the concept of time. That's why it is said that He's the Alpha and His the Omega.

 

[jmvizanko]

'First place' doesn't even exist outside the concept of time. That's why it is said that He's the Alpha and His the Omega.

Alright, then let me combine the two statements into a revised statement that doesn't include the "first place" it never should have.

Why would he exist instead of him not existing, or just the universe existing, or nothing existing. The fact that something exists instead of something different or nothing existing is the mindf**k here. How time applies to whatever exists is independent of understanding why it exists.

 

[Viinasu]

the flying spaghetti monster, of course!

jk.... as i'm not a theist, i couldn't tell you... but as for the theists turning the question around, we atheists/agnostics/ etc. don't claim to know. the big bang is just a theory, and science hasn't really got a great explanation yet. we just think that it's such an impossible story, it can't be or probably isn't true.

we don't have a scientific explanation yet... but science can move pretty fast, i'm certain we'll have one soon.

 

[idea]

Nor is anything gained by running the difficulty farther back.... Our going back, ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. — William Paley (1)


How did life begin in the first place? It's a natural question. Yet we have no idea how life began in the first place. Science is nowhere near the answer to this question. In fact, the question may be flawed. Maybe there was no beginning. This possibility cannot be logically ruled out.

This possible consequence of Cosmic Ancestry is not new. In 1873, the great German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz said, "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..." (2).

Contemporaneously with Helmholtz, Louis Pasteur wrote (3):

[SIZE=-1]I have been looking for spontaneous generation during twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible.... You place matter before life, and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists... to consider that life has existed during eternity and not matter?[/SIZE]
​

Early in the 20th century, Russian geochemist V. I. Vernadskii observed (4):

[SIZE=-1]None of the exact relationships between facts which we know will be changed if this problem has a negative solution, that is, if we admit that life always existed and had no beginning, that living organisms never arose at any time from inert material....[/SIZE]


.... - see The Beginning. by Brig Klyce

I'm a fan of strong panspermia myself
​

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well, to flip the question, to those who believe in the big bang (and to be clear I believe in both god and the big bang) where did the singularity that kicked off the universe come from? In every creation theory there is something that must have been there in the beginning with no explanation of where it's from. Religion has God. Science has the singularity.

Actually thats not really comparable, nor are the views the same.

In truth if you believe in God, and God created everything including Time, God would be a constant.

Which already is a problem for an intelligent mind because "action" requires time already by mere definition.
You might only say that the time continuum we live in was created

 

[Misty]

This post above is not only non sequitur, it is off topic, and it's bigoted nonsense.

It's no advert for skepticism, iow.

You seem to use the word 'bigoted' in the wrong context!

 

[eliehass]

Actually thats not really comparable, nor are the views the same.


Which already is a problem for an intelligent mind because "action" requires time already by mere definition.
You might only say that the time continuum we live in was created

How is it not the same? Has science determined where thte singularity came from? Or is it still simply accepted as an unknown or something that was always there?

And action as we know it in our universe requires Time, but that does not by any means mean that all action requires time.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

How is it not the same? Has science determined where thte singularity came from? Or is it still simply accepted as an unknown or something that was always there?

Neither.
Science states that it doesn't know. THATS the difference.
All science says is that if we followed the natural laws back in time and if they had been valid till the absolute start then THIS universe would have started from a singularity. We do not know where this came from nor do we actually know if it existed with all the supposed infinite attributes that it supposedly had because the natural laws as we know them break down at a certain point.
Science doesnt set a starting point to "everything". It just has a starting point of this universe and actually makes no claims about anything outside.

Religion on the other hand claims to know that there was God, claims to know what he did and what he continues to do and claims to know what will happen with us.

And action as we know it in our universe requires Time, but that does not by any means mean that all action requires time.

Sure we can talk about stuff that is meaningless ... but then again being meaningless equates for me in irrelevance.
You can't even imagine an act that requires no time. The mere definition of action requires time.
Surely there could be something that we do not understand but then again there is no reason to argue about that/discuss it or even worse to claim its existence without anything that we even theoretically could comprehend.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

God was there before the idea of 'creating' was formed. In other words there was no such thing as creating or creation until God decided there was.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Time is part of space, hence the expression spacetime. There was no 'time' before the universe existed..hence there was no 'before the universe existed', as the term before is meaningless outside of the context of time.

 

[Sunstone]

God is an emergent property of the universe that first manifested around 12 nanoseconds into the big bang.

 

[Misty]

God is an emergent property of the universe that first manifested around 12 nanoseconds into the big bang.

How did you work that one out?

 

[Wotan]

How did you work that one out?

He didn't.

But it sounded profound and he likes that so much he repeats it. Actual evidence is not relevant.

 

[SageTree]

Imo, God is a verb, therefore non-dual from creation itself. The created continues to create. And we as the proverbial nerve endings of the Universe are much like a co-creator. Imo of course. My only proof is what's in my heart.

 

[Misty]

Imo, God is a verb, therefore non-dual from creation itself. The created continues to create. And we as the proverbial nerve endings of the Universe are much like a co-creator. Imo of course. My only proof is what's in my heart.

An interesting thought.

 

[ChristineES]

For those who believe God exists and kicked off the universe, how was he created, and what evidence do you have for your answer? Saying he was always there is no answer.

I just just don't see any difference in saying "God kicked off the universe" and "the universe kicked off itself". We have no way of finding out how it happened. The same goes for how God would be created (which is easy for atheists to answer )

 

[Adramelek]

As for the original question, "Who created God?" The answer is so simple - mankind created God in his own image. Also, all other gods of all other times and nations have been created by men. As for the primordial origins of this vast, endless Universe, humanity has not even come close to answering, through science, philosophy, or religion, with absolute Truth, that ultimate of questions. Hell, we've hardly even penetrated the bounds of our own solar system. :sarcastic One can delude ones' self into thinking they possess some "holy" book which holds all the "answers", however, it is nothing more than absolute delusional, irrational thinking.

/Adramelek\