Who created God?

[waitasec]

An uncaused cause has to be something, to cause.

not really.
an uncaused cause is nothing.
but that's ok.

 

[Sleeppy]

not really.
an uncaused cause is nothing.
but that's ok.

Then you can't say that the universe or its origin always existed. Nothing you say after that can make sense.

 

[jamesmorrow]

sleeppy, you find it unreasonable to believe that our universe was not designed

I never said that, either.

ok, so you find it reasonable to believe that our universe was not designed???

 

[jamesmorrow]

An uncaused cause has to be something, to cause.

but before it can be something to cause, it cant exist because it is defined as a cause of/ result of something that was not caused in the first place because it is "uncaused"

 

[Sleeppy]

sleeppy, you find it unreasonable to believe that our universe was not designed

ok, so you find it reasonable to believe that our universe was not designed???

Obviously, the universe has a design. Everything except nothingness has design. Take that however you want. Was it designed? You decide your opinion.

 

[waitasec]

Then you can't say that the universe or its origin always existed. Nothing you say after that can make sense.

you're right i can't... and neither can you say god is not a result

 

[Sleeppy]

but before it can be something to cause, it cant exist because it is defined as a cause of/ result of something that was not caused in the first place because it is "uncaused"

Cause of and result of aren't the same thing.

 

[Sleeppy]

you're right i can't... and neither can you say god is not a result

Sure I can. I'm saying it. That's one of the only options that makes sense.

 

[waitasec]

Sure I can. I'm saying it. That's one of the only options that makes sense.

so why can't i?

 

[Sleeppy]

so why can't i?

Why can't you, what?

 

[waitasec]

Why can't you, what?

.....

Then you can't say that the universe or its origin always existed. Nothing you say after that can make sense.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Obviously, the universe has a design. Everything except nothingness has design. Take that however you want. Was it designed? You decide your opinion.

1.i will take your earlier claim that god exists, and is something rather than nothing, combine it with your above claim that everything except nothingness has design, and safely conclude that you believe that god has a design......

2. since you believe that both, the universe and god has a design, i repeat my question, do you believe that the universe WAS DESIGNED? do you believe that god WAS DESIGNED?

 

[Sleeppy]

.....

Because you're trying to say that the uncaused cause is nothing. If you hold that to be true, you can't say the same thing I did. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Sleeppy]

1.i will take your earlier claim that god exists, and is something rather than nothing, combine it with your above claim that everything except nothingness has design, and safely conclude that you believe that god has a design......

2. since you believe that both, the universe and god has a design, i repeat my question, do you believe that the universe WAS DESIGNED? do you believe that god WAS DESIGNED?

I believe in God. I believe that God has always been in His design, not designed. I believe the universe is designed by God.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, no, that isn't the theory.

According to what explanation of the theory? Could you direct to the reputable source you are using? I'll give you some of mine (which is, thankfully, easy, as I've already addressed this).
From The Nature of Space and Time By Hawking and Penrose (Princeton University Press, 1996): "Indeed, almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."

From Professsor Michael Woolfson's Time, Space, Stars, and Man: The Story of the Big Bang (Imperial College Press, 2009): "This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe- that at some point in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singuilarity. That is a challenging idea. The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist! Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiement- close your eyes and try to think of nothing- absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand- really understand- a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exists. This theory, called the Big Bang thoery, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, "What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?", to which you will receive the answer, "There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occured." You might try again with the question, "Into what did the Universe expand?", to which the answer is, "There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded...Remember, once the Universe came into being and began to expand, then it is possible to talk about time" [italics in original, emphases added]. p.66
As Paul Lurquin puts it in his book Origins of Life and the Universe (Columbia University Press, 2003), this we are talking about "a universe beginning with a singularity characterized by zero space" So a point of zero space which isn't in space and neither space nor time exist. Norman Glennding titled the first chapter of his book Our Place in the Universe (World Scientific, 2007) "A Day without Yesterday" for a reason: "In an instant of creation about 14 billion years ago the universe burst forth, creating space where there was no space, and time when there was no time."

Please research this more.

Why don't you help me out by pointing out the research you've done which indicates I'm wrong? A journal article, textbook, monograph, or some other academic publication which describes the big bang theory and indicates that I'm incorrect and that what you said was true.

 

[jamesmorrow]

I believe in God. I believe that God has always been in His design, not designed. I believe the universe is designed by God.

good, which brings us back to my original question....

what is your logic, or reasoning by which you conclude that our universe's design implies a designer yet god's design does not imply a designer?

 

[Sleeppy]

good, which brings us back to my original question....

What is your logic, or reasoning by which you conclude that our universe's design implies a designer yet god's design does not imply a designer?

The fact of design is not the reason I believe in a designer.

 

[jamesmorrow]

The fact of design is not the reason I believe in a designer.

no offense, but are you just trying to increase your post count here? i noticed you do the same thing with waitasec....

do i really have to ask you to please provide the reason why you believe in a designer?... wait. before you dedicate another post to the answer YES.

let me go ahead an ask:.... sleeppy, will you please provide the reason why you believe in a designer?

 

[waitasec]

Because you're trying to say that the uncaused cause is nothing. If you hold that to be true, you can't say the same thing I did. It doesn't make sense.

i am saying if your argument that nothing makes nothing and only something can make something, then your argument of god being the uncaused cause is essentially saying nothing created something...
just as i can say big bang

 

[Daviso452]

According to what explanation of the theory? Could you direct to the reputable source you are using? I'll give you some of mine (which is, thankfully, easy, as I've already addressed this).
From The Nature of Space and Time By Hawking and Penrose (Princeton University Press, 1996): "Indeed, almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."

From Professsor Michael Woolfson's Time, Space, Stars, and Man: The Story of the Big Bang (Imperial College Press, 2009): "This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe- that at some point in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singuilarity. That is a challenging idea. The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist! Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiement- close your eyes and try to think of nothing- absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand- really understand- a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exists. This theory, called the Big Bang thoery, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, "What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?", to which you will receive the answer, "There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occured." You might try again with the question, "Into what did the Universe expand?", to which the answer is, "There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded...Remember, once the Universe came into being and began to expand, then it is possible to talk about time" [italics in original, emphases added]. p.66
As Paul Lurquin puts it in his book Origins of Life and the Universe (Columbia University Press, 2003), this we are talking about "a universe beginning with a singularity characterized by zero space" So a point of zero space which isn't in space and neither space nor time exist. Norman Glennding titled the first chapter of his book Our Place in the Universe (World Scientific, 2007) "A Day without Yesterday" for a reason: "In an instant of creation about 14 billion years ago the universe burst forth, creating space where there was no space, and time when there was no time."



Why don't you help me out by pointing out the research you've done which indicates I'm wrong? A journal article, textbook, monograph, or some other academic publication which describes the big bang theory and indicates that I'm incorrect and that what you said was true.

I was getting confused with semantics. You are correct. What I was actually referring to was the singularity. It was the source of matter and energy that became the universe. I have gotten used to just calling the singularity itself our universe. Sorry for the confusion. But I do admit you are correct in this situation.

But just to be clear, even though the universe did not exist before the big bang, all matter and energy did; that was what made up the singularity.