Who created God?

[fishy]

I would ask the OP to show how God is a contingent being, meaning a being that exists that might not have existed, like humans, before us theists have to show where he came from. Until then I am satisfied in considering God as a necessary being whose non-existence is impossible. There is a lot of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, therefore it has to have an explanation for that beginning. There is no scientific evidence that God had a beginning so I don’t need an explanation for his beginning, yet.

Because the universe apparently had a beginning that somehow proves that a god had something to do with it. More importantly, that your particular god was the cause.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I would ask the OP to show how God is a contingent being, meaning a being that exists that might not have existed, like humans, before us theists have to show where he came from.

It depends what you mean by "God"? And what you can show is true of this "God"?

Until then I am satisfied in considering God as a necessary being whose non-existence is impossible.

You can consider whatever you like, can you show it is true?

There is a lot of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, therefore it has to have an explanation for that beginning.

There are many explanations. whether any of them is true is debatable.

There is no scientific evidence that God had a beginning so I don’t need an explanation for his beginning, yet.

There is no scientific evidence of God.

 

[Man of Faith]

Because the universe apparently had a beginning that somehow proves that a god had something to do with it. More importantly, that your particular god was the cause.

That's off topic.

 

[Man of Faith]

There is no scientific evidence of God.

And that is what makes my argument for not having to show how God began so strong. If science can't show that God had a beginning, like it shows that the universe had a beginning then there is no need to explain that beginning. I can just state that God is a necessary being.

 

[filthy tugboat]

And that is what makes my argument for not having to show how God began so strong. If science can't show that God had a beginning, like it shows that the universe had a beginning then there is no need to explain that beginning. I can just state that God is a necessary being.

But that doesn't make it so. Can you show that God is a necessary being? What do you mean by "God"? Your view of God might not be necessary, even if you call it that.

 

[fishy]

And that is what makes my argument for not having to show how God began so strong. If science can't show that God had a beginning, like it shows that the universe had a beginning then there is no need to explain that beginning. I can just state that God is a necessary being.

As is a pink unicorn.

 

[Man of Faith]

But that doesn't make it so. Can you show that God is a necessary being? What do you mean by "God"? Your view of God might not be necessary, even if you call it that.

Here is how we can show that God must be eternal and non-caused, because there can’t be an infinite number of anything in the real world, only in abstract. If God was created then who or what created the thing that created God, and who created the thing that created the thing that created God, and on and on for infinity. Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel demonstrates the impossibility of an infinite number of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

Now that we have demonstrated that it is impossible for there to be an infinite number of things in the reality, we can determine that there can’t be an infinite number of things or beings that were created. Therefore I am logically justified by mathematics in stating that if God exists then he could be eternal and did not have a beginning.

 

[Man of Faith]

As is a pink unicorn.

You're still off topic, sorry. The OP has already assumed there to be a God so I don't have to justify that in this post.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Here is how we can show that God must be eternal and non-caused, because there can’t be an infinite number of anything in the real world, only in abstract. If God was created then who or what created the thing that created God, and who created the thing that created the thing that created God, and on and on for infinity. Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel demonstrates the impossibility of an infinite number of things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

Now that we have demonstrated that it is impossible for there to be an infinite number of things in the reality, we can determine that there can’t be an infinite number of things or beings that were created. Therefore I am logically justified by mathematics in stating that if God exists then he could be eternal and did not have a beginning.

I didn't ask about any of that though, I asked you to show that the God you believe in is a necessary entity. I also asked you to define your God in a complete sense in order to determine whether such a being is at least logically valid.

 

[PolyHedral]

there can’t be an infinite number of anything in the real world, only in abstract.

Why not?

 

[Man of Faith]

I didn't ask about any of that though, I asked you to show that the God you believe in is a necessary entity. I also asked you to define your God in a complete sense in order to determine whether such a being is at least logically valid.

A necessary being is a being that exists by their own nature, such as numbers. Was there a time before the universe began where numbers didn't exist? I don't think so, because numbers are abstract objects. God can be described as necessary because he isn't contingent on anything, he hasn't been shown by science to have a beginning, so it is logical that he might not have a beginning so we don't have to describe how he began.

 

[Man of Faith]

Why not?

Science.

 

[PolyHedral]

Science.

Then you will easily be able to provide a source.

 

[waitasec]

Prophet Muhammad predicted that this question would one day be raised as he correctly predicted a great many future events of importance. On one occasion he said:

A day will certainly come when some people will sit with their legs crossed and ask: ‘Given that God created everything, who created God?’ (Bukhari, ‘I‘tisam,’ 3).

This question is derived from the observation of (what are taken to be) ‘cause and effect’ relationships. Every circumstance can be thought of as an ‘effect’ and attributed to an antecedent circumstance or ‘cause’ which, in turn, is attributed to some circumstance antecedent to it, and so on. In the first place, it is obvious to anyone who reasons objectively that the notion of ‘cause’ is only an hypothesis, it has no objective existence: all that objectively exists is a particular, often (but not always) repeated sequence of circumstances. Secondly, if this hypothesis is applied to existence as a whole, we cannot find a creator of it because each creator must have a creator before that creator, in a never-ending chain. (In fact, the futile notion of a never-ending chain of creators was one of the arguments used by Muslim theologians to explain the necessity of believing in God.)
So the Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal.

time.
time is an essential part of our reality. i do not understand un-time.
do you? this same logic can also be applied to the universe....what was before the big bang?
what was before god ?
to me it's the same question with different clothes.

 

[waitasec]

Why not?

exactly, why not?
if the concept of god is eternal the same can be applied to god, imo.

 

[maj123]

time.
time is an essential part of our reality. i do not understand un-time.
do you? this same logic can also be applied to the universe....what was before the big bang?
what was before god ?
to me it's the same question with different clothes.

Before Allah there's nothing Allah is the First and the Last, and the Outward and the Inward; and He is Knower of all things.

11|7|And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days and His Throne was upon the water that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. Yet if thou (O Muhammad) sayest: Lo! ye will be raised again after death! those who disbelieve will surely say: This is naught but mere magic.

and for who deny the exist of the creator I think it's much easier to deny the exist of one's self than denying the creator, and they can not deny theirselvs ,
On the other hand, I confess that this fact of knowing the creator is required
the intervention of the creator Himself to help you access this truth and it's one of thing which are against the perfect attributes of Allah if he do not make His creatures know him (by divine revelation ) in Quran Allah said:
6|91|And they measure not the power of Allah its true measure when they say: Allah hath naught revealed unto a human being. Say (unto the Jews who speak thus): Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for mankind, which ye have put on parchments which ye show, but ye hide much (thereof), and by which ye were taught that which ye knew not yourselves nor (did) your fathers (know it)? Say: Allah. Then leave them to their play of cavilling.

It's important to know that all the messengers that Allah had sent
to mankind to convey His message (the complete way of life) all
those messengers their people faced them with object and enmity

6|34|Messengers indeed have been denied before thee, and they were patient under the denial and the persecution till Our succour reached them. There is none to alter the decisions of Allah. Already there hath reached thee (somewhat) of the tidings of the messengers (We sent before).

and said also:
6|112|Thus have We appointed unto every Prophet an adversary--devils of humankind and jinn who inspire in one another plausible discourse through guile. If thy Lord willed, they would not do so; so leave them alone with their devising;

25|31|Even so have We appointed unto every Prophet an opportent from among the guilty; but Allah sufficeth for a Guide and Helper.

34|34|And We sent not unto any township a warner, but its pampered ones declared: Lo! we are disbelievers in that which ye bring unto Us.

but at the end the sequel was for the messengers and the believers :

11|49|This is of the tidings of the Unseen which We inspire in thee (Muhammad). Thou thyself knewest it not, nor did thy folk (know it) before this. Then have patience. Lo! the sequel is for those who ward off (evil).

7|128|And Moses said unto his people: Seek help in Allah and endure. Lo! the earth is Allah's. He giveth it for an inheritance to whom He will. And lo! the sequel is for those who keep their duty (unto Him).

28|83|As for that Abode of the Hereafter We assign it unto those who seek not oppression in the earth, nor yet corruption. The sequel is for those who ward off (evil).
I hope that I expressed my point of view clearly.
Regards

 

[waitasec]

Before Allah there's nothing Allah is the First and the Last

the same argument can be made for the universe...
:yes:

 

[filthy tugboat]

A necessary being is a being that exists by their own nature, such as numbers.

Does your version of God exist by virtue of it's own nature? Can you demonstrate that?

Was there a time before the universe began where numbers didn't exist?

"Before the universe began" when was this time? Space-time essentially began at the Big Bang, there was no before without time.

I don't think so, because numbers are abstract objects.

How does that mean they exist without a universe? if anything, their being abstract makes them dependent on the existence of the universe as that is what they are abstracted from. Without the universe they don't exist.

God can be described as necessary because he isn't contingent on anything,

Isn't he? Can you demonstrate that your version of God is necessary?

he hasn't been shown by science to have a beginning, so it is logical that he might not have a beginning so we don't have to describe how he began.

This doesn't mean he is necessary, it just means he has an odd and unexplainable existence.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Prophet Muhammad predicted that this question would one day be raised as he correctly predicted a great many future events of importance. On one occasion he said:

A day will certainly come when some people will sit with their legs crossed and ask: ‘Given that God created everything, who created God?’ (Bukhari, ‘I‘tisam,’ 3)..

sadly the prophecy fails because we, or at least i do not sit with my legs crossed, but rather in my cal king tempur pedic bed typing from a remote keyboard, following everything on my 60 inch LED TV that is connected to my lap top computer.... if only muhammad could have predicted that. i would join islam no questions asked.

This question is derived from the observation of (what are taken to be) ‘cause and effect’ relationships. Every circumstance can be thought of as an ‘effect’ and attributed to an antecedent circumstance or ‘cause’ which, in turn, is attributed to some circumstance antecedent to it, and so on. In the first place, it is obvious to anyone who reasons objectively that the notion of ‘cause’ is only an hypothesis, it has no objective existence: all that objectively exists is a particular, often (but not always) repeated sequence of circumstances. Secondly, if this hypothesis is applied to existence as a whole, we cannot find a creator of it because each creator must have a creator before that creator, in a never-ending chain. (In fact, the futile notion of a never-ending chain of creators was one of the arguments used by Muslim theologians to explain the necessity of believing in God.)
So the Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal.

sure, something must have always existed. otherwise nothing could exist because nothing can come from nothing... question is, why believe in a complex god, when you can believe in a far less complex universe?

 

[jamesmorrow]

I would ask the OP to show how God is a contingent being, meaning a being that exists that might not have existed, like humans, before us theists have to show where he came from. Until then I am satisfied in considering God as a necessary being whose non-existence is impossible. There is a lot of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, therefore it has to have an explanation for that beginning. There is no scientific evidence that God had a beginning so I don’t need an explanation for his beginning, yet.

there is no scientific evidence that god exists in the first place either. and the scientific evidence for the universe's beginning only refers to our observable universe. not the space surrounding it, which could very well have always existed.