Who created God?

[jamesmorrow]

No. You're actually giving 'nothing' the definition for something, by saying that it did something. Nothing does nothing. Only something can do something.

That is not at all what i am doing. In fact
I couldnt define nothing as something even if i tried. The statement "nothing went through the process of actively creating god" , is equal to the statement "god was not created".

 

[Sleeppy]

That is not at all what i am doing. In fact
I couldnt define nothing as something even if i tried. The statement "nothing went through the process of actively creating god" , is equal to the statement "god was not created".

No it's not. The first statement says something was created, the other statement doesn't.

 

[waitasec]

No it's not. The first statement says something was created, the other statement doesn't.

yet..

Nothing does nothing. Only something can do something.

 

[Sleeppy]

didn't you say, "something can't come from nothing"?
how can you say something always exist while saying something can't come from nothing?

Did I say that?..
Anyway, it's true.

Nothing can only not be. Something can only be.
Nothing can only be inactive. Something can only be active.
Nothing can only do nothing. Something can only do something.

The something - God - didn't come, because He already was.

 

[jamesmorrow]

No it's not. The first statement says something was created, the other statement doesn't.

To say that nothing did something is to say that nothing happened because nothing was there to do something in the first place

 

[Sleeppy]

yet..

And?..

 

[Sleeppy]

To say that nothing did something is to say that nothing happened because nothing was there for something in the first place

Which is why the two statements aren't the same.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's obvious that god was created. God is more complex than anything, and, if there's one thing we've learned from religious folks, anything that looks designed implies a designer. It is basic logic that god didn't design himself, so he must have been created by somebody else.

That somebody else is SuperGod.

I suggest you get right with SuperGod, and fast. His hell makes the regular hell look like Disney Land.

 

[waitasec]

Did I say that?..
Anyway, it's true.

you said:

Originally Posted by Sleeppy
Nothing does nothing. Only something can do something.

Nothing can only not be. Something can only be.
Nothing can only be inactive. Something can only be active.
Nothing can only do nothing. Something can only do something.

The something - God - didn't come, because He already was.

we all know what nothing is and we all know what something is.
since nothing does nothing and only something can do something
how can an uncaused cause, cause... ? uncaused cause means nothing.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Which is why the two statements aren't the same.

They are not the same but they have the same meaning.....just like "i did nothing" has the same meaning as " i did not do anything"

 

[Sleeppy]

we all know what nothing is and we all know what something is.
since nothing does nothing and only something can do something
how can an uncaused cause, cause... ? uncaused cause means nothing.

No. If it causes, it's doing something, which makes it something.

 

[Sleeppy]

They are not the same but they have the same meaning.....just like "i did nothing" has the same meaning as " i did not do anything"

You can say both, but -

Is nothing something that can be done? No. Nothing is not something, and it is absent of doing.

 

[jamesmorrow]

No. If it causes, it's doing something, which makes it something.

Sleeppy you have just said that nothing can ONLY be inactive. So then how can you say that nothing can be active and do something(cause something)?? You are contradicting yourself

 

[Sleeppy]

Sleeppy you have just said that nothing can ONLY be inactive. So then how can you say that nothing can be active and do something(cause something)?? You are contradicting yourself

No, I'm not. God is something. Therefore, He is active.

 

[jamesmorrow]

No, I'm not. God is something. Therefore, He is active.

but you believe that nothing caused god. You believe that nothing caused something. While simultaneously rejecting this belief when applied to the universe. You have a double standard. Whether you are aware of it or not.

 

[Sleeppy]

but you believe that nothing caused god. You believe that nothing caused something. While simultaneously rejecting this belief when applied to the universe. You have a double standard. Whether you are aware of it or not.

That's what I'm trying to get across to you - I didn't say, "Nothing caused God," because I know it doesn't make much sense to you.

Instead I'd say, God was not caused.

 

[jamesmorrow]

You believe that something simply exists by nothing. You believe that your highly intelligent complex specific and detailed god being exist by sheer inactivity and random chance... yet when it comes to applying this same belief to a simpler something(like the universe) you curiously find it to be a ridiculous belief.... why is that? What logic, what line of reasoning are you following? Or are you just going by blind faith, wishful thinking and emotional appeal?

 

[Sleeppy]

You believe that something simply exists by nothing. You believe that your highly intelligent complex specific and detailed god being exist by sheer inactivity and random chance... yet when it comes to applying this same belief to a simpler something(like the universe) you curiously find it to be a ridiculous belief.... why is that? What logic, what line of reasoning are you following? Or are you just going by blind faith, wishful thinking and emotional appeal?

No. You're attributing claims to me that I never made. If you need to ask questions so that you actually have some of my claims, do that, but don't attribute anything to else to me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You don't. A moment before time would require that points "outside" of the universe (assuming that they exist at all) can be ordered in the same way that points inside the universe can. As any topologist will tell you, this isn't necessarily true.

That was kind of my point. Although I wouldn't say "any topologist" would be able to speak about physics. I could say a lot about topology a few years ago, but couldn't then say anything about points outside the universe. If one is used to studying the topology of data structures in economics or something similar, what would they know about connecting descriptions of "surfaces" or manifolds in whatever dimensions they work with to the legitimacy of points in physical dimensional space?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You believe that something simply exists by nothing.

No .. God is not physical .. we all know that physical matter has to have come from somewhere, but asking where God comes from,
is like asking where "imaginary numbers" come from

You believe that your highly intelligent complex specific and detailed god being exist by sheer inactivity and random chance... yet when it comes to applying this same belief to a simpler something(like the universe) you curiously find it to be a ridiculous belief

Is the universe that simple? I don't think so. The idea of God is not complex at all .. but knowledge is never ending..
All creatures have souls/personalities .. where in the brain is "the you", who makes decisions? "Who" controls your body? It's inuitive that there must be something more than the brain .. otherwise there is nothing to control the body (of which the brain is a part)