Who created God?

[maj123]

If I answered you who created god will you convinced or you will ask me who created the that one (creator) too?

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Authors

 

[waitasec]

If I answered you who created god will you convinced or you will ask me who created the that one (creator) too?

why do you ask?
are you afraid of your ideas being challenged?





pssst, here's a little secret.
if you don't know, it's best not to say anything unless you posit your thoughts as your own and not as an absolute truth. if you do, that's when your ideas get challenged

 

[Sleeppy]

If not, please explain why. Otherwise it is a wasted post.

I explained why a bit earlier.

no you did not

are you being dishonest?
i think you are.


:tsk:

edit:
actually you said this:

That's actually the wrong post.

no it isn't

You're right. I'm sure I can think of several other things to do instead of replying to a spiteful mindset. Honestly, I likely would have stepped in anyway.

It's amusing that you think I don't have reasons for believing in my God. Everyone in these forums, I'm sure, has their reasons for whatever they believe. It's actually insulting.

But, you can ask Waitasec how I respond to certain tones. Your spite isn't something I'm interested in entertaining.

Then tell us what is! You're making yourself look incredibly idiotic with these replies, just so you know. Even if you HAD already posted it, the fact that we have no clue to what you are referring shows that you were probably not clear when you said it. Please either re-post it or re-explain it.

Idiotic? Well, I won't get too offended.

Hit a rock enough times and it will eventually crack.

No games.

 

[Sleeppy]

are you being dishonest?
i think you are.


:tsk:

edit:
actually you said this:

What does uncaused cause mean to you? Define it for me.

cause (kôz)
n.
1.The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.

vb
(tr) to be the cause of; bring about; precipitate; be the reason for

the prefix
un
meaning
not, or the opposite of.
Prefixes un- and dis-

uncaused means not the producer of an effect or result;
not to be the cause of;
not the cause to bring about;
not the cause of precipitation;
not the cause to be the reason for

the prime mover is essentially nothing...as an uncaused cause.

there's the argument of always being in our understanding of time
vs. one point in time...time being the of the essence.
our reality is dependent on time...i cannot understand what un time is...i am not a quantum physicist and i am assuming, maybe i'm wrong, neither are you.
so what does all this have to do with....life in our reality of time?
nothing.

No. Caused has a different tense and usage than cause.

Something caused, is an effect, result, or consequence (of a producer).

You can actually just look up the full word, "uncaused."

you asked



i am not going to change my definition of uncaused because it doesn't fit yours
:sorry1:


can you provide a link?

Yet, you used a dictionary to define "un" and "cause." Be honest with me. Also, the point wasn't for you to make up your own definition. It was to know whether you actually knew the definition of the word. If you knew you were arguing with a definition that I would have no way of knowing, there's something wrong there.

uncaused - definition of uncaused by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

un·caused (n-kôzd)
adj.
Existing without a perceptible cause; spontaneous.

wasn't this one of my definitions?
:yes:


no, you asked me how i defined it...
i did

Dishonesty? Pride?

 

[waitasec]

Dishonesty? Pride?

you're full of it

it's really easy to follow how the discourse went down...just press the little blue arrow...
this is how it went down

If not, please explain why. Otherwise it is a wasted post.

I explained why a bit earlier.

are you being dishonest?
i think you are.


:tsk:

edit:
actually you said this:

for shame

 

[waitasec]

i guess you are willing to do anything to not answer james' question


impressive tactical maneuvers....not

 

[Sleeppy]

no, i am actually pleasantly relieved my argument has so far proven bulletproof. but i can tell you are offended. you only have yourself to blame though, you set yourself up to fail.

Your argument is a delusion.

Your comparison is off..

Randomness and chance can't have part in explaining something that always existed. But, I think that is how they explain the birth of the universe - big bang etc.

why cant nothingness and random chance have part in explaining something that always existed? if something always existed then it was not created, correct? meaning that nothing created that certain something(in this case a complex god being) by random chance. you have to factor in random chance when you claim that a highly intelligent something came from nothing by nothing out of nothing. it is by random chance.... god could have existed as an evil unforgiving hateful being , or as a good, loving merciful being, or even as a just being balancing good and evil. these are all chances. nothingness and random chance were always there.

No. You're saying something that always existed was created by something else. That doesn't make sense.

Not at all. Nothing is not something. To say that nothing created god is not to say something created god. It is to say god was not created. You also have to consider that god could have always existed in a multitude of shapes, sizes, characteristics, natures attributes or lack thereof. These are the chances of gods existence. Out of this infinite multitude of chances god existed at one random chance created by nothing. So we have nothingness and random chance.

Now. If it's not obvious, I'll point it out further.

You asked,

"Why can't randomness and chance have part in explaining something that always existed?"

I shouldn't have to explain this one. Randomness and chance can't work with nothingness.

You said,

"To say that nothing created god is not to say something created god. It is to say god was not created."

Or existing at all.. Which isn't the same as saying He is uncaused or the uncaused causer, as I showed Waitasec shortly after this.

uncaused - definition of uncaused by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

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.

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

let me put it this way

sleeppy, you find it unreasonable to believe that our universe was not designed, yet find it reasonable to believe that God was not designed. explain your reasoning please.

I never said that, either.

My response to Waitasec, just a little earlier than this conversation:

That's not my argument. Obviously, because I believe in God, I believe existence came from Him.

To me, the only other sensible belief is that something else always existed. If the universe began from the Big Bang, as they say, then something before it was ever existing.

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.

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.

Uncaused. Refer back to the provided link.

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.

Dishonesty? Pride?

 

[Sleeppy]

you're full of it

it's really easy to follow how the discourse went down...just press the little blue arrow...
this is how it went down


for shame

i guess you are willing to do anything to not answer james' question


impressive tactical maneuvers....not

Yet.. You still won't admit that you had no idea what uncaused meant. Likely why you find just about all of my posts and respond to them, even if they're in response to someone else. That's all a result of your pride.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Its rather obvious that although he has nothing left to say, his pride keeps pulling himback for more. a person posessed by the sin of pride does not have the holy spirit.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Dont fall for this guys. Sleeppy is reconstructing an early part of our discussion that happened right before he painted himself into a corner, in hopes that you will pick up on it and he gets a second chance. Fact remains that the above quoted conversation resulted in a question sleepy is avoiding like the plague. As soon as you man up and answer that question i will give you another go. Till then work on growing a spine.

 

[waitasec]

Yet.. You still won't admit that you had no idea what uncaused meant.

i told you how i defined it as you asked me how i defined it


and my definition included yours...

uncaused means not the producer of an effect or result;
not to be the cause of;
not the cause to bring about;
not the cause of precipitation;
not the cause to be the reason for

the prime mover is essentially nothing...as an uncaused cause.

there's the argument of always being in our understanding of time
vs. one point in time...time being the of the essence.
our reality is dependent on time...i cannot understand what un time is...i am not a quantum physicist and i am assuming, maybe i'm wrong, neither are you.
so what does all this have to do with....life in our reality of time?
nothing.

Yet, you used a dictionary to define "un" and "cause." Be honest with me. Also, the point wasn't for you to make up your own definition. It was to know whether you actually knew the definition of the word. If you knew you were arguing with a definition that I would have no way of knowing, there's something wrong there.

uncaused - definition of uncaused by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

so why don't you post what the definition says...i did.

if you want to be treated like a liar you doing an excellent job.
:clap

Likely why you find just about all of my posts and respond to them, even if they're in response to someone else. That's all a result of your pride.

wooks wike your pwide was hoit....

 

[Sleeppy]

Dont fall for this guys. Sleeppy is reconstructing an early part of our discussion that happened right before he painted himself into a corner, in hopes that you will pick up on it and he gets a second chance. Fact remains that the above quoted conversation resulted in a question sleepy is avoiding like the plague. As soon as you man up and answer that question i will give you another go. Till then work on growing a spine.

i told you how i defined it as you asked me how i defined it


and my definition included yours...

uncaused means not the producer of an effect or result;
not to be the cause of;
not the cause to bring about;
not the cause of precipitation;
not the cause to be the reason for

the prime mover is essentially nothing...as an uncaused cause.

there's the argument of always being in our understanding of time
vs. one point in time...time being the of the essence.
our reality is dependent on time...i cannot understand what un time is...i am not a quantum physicist and i am assuming, maybe i'm wrong, neither are you.
so what does all this have to do with....life in our reality of time?
nothing.




so why don't you post what the definition says...i did.

if you want to be treated like a liar you doing an excellent job.
:clap




wooks wike your pwide was hoit....

Let's let the thread speak for itself.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Let's let the thread speak for itself.

If i knew from the beginning that you were the type of person who runs and hides from difficult questions, i would have never wasted my time with you.

And so my question stands as does your cowardice

 

[waitasec]

Sleeppy: i ask again. If "the fact of design" is not the reason you believe in a designer, what is the reason you believe in a designer?

If you can not think of a reason besides "the fact of design" for why you believe in a designer, just say so. But ignoring a question because you do not have a good answer is not the way to go

I don't have any interest in your question. Make another thread with that specific question and I'll likely step in when I have nothing better to do.

pride... (not a humble meek stance, i'd say)

You dont have any interest in my question, but if i open another thread with that question you will answer it if you have nothing better to do? Better like what? Better like coming up with a clever way to avoid the question by telling me just how disinterested you are in it? A question which ironically enough you have set yourself up for as a result of avoiding my previous question.

You're right. I'm sure I can think of several other things to do instead of replying to a spiteful mindset. Honestly, I likely would have stepped in anyway.

It's amusing that you think I don't have reasons for believing in my God. Everyone in these forums, I'm sure, has their reasons for whatever they believe. It's actually insulting.

But, you can ask Waitasec how I respond to certain tones. Your spite isn't something I'm interested in entertaining.

boom... there it is...
apparently sleepy likes to be appeased

and this is what we call "pulling the offended theist card" in order to weasel your way out of a sticky situation

yup

Not really.

he didn't deny it :sarcastic

If not, please explain why. Otherwise it is a wasted post.

I explained why a bit earlier.

the is no evidence of that...

no you did not

yes, let the thread speak for itself.


the higher they climb the harder they fall...
don't need to read proverbs to that out

 

[jamesmorrow]

well, i guess thats it then. apparently no other theist is willing to come forth, and sleepy was a dead end. guess ill move on to the next topic.....keep an eye out for my new "Is God immoral?" thread, to appear in the religious debates section within the hour.... and fine bookstores everywhere.... i wish.

 

[Daviso452]

That's a wrap. Nice work guys!

 

[maj123]

why do you ask?
are you afraid of your ideas being challenged?
pssst, here's a little secret.
if you don't know, it's best not to say anything unless you posit your thoughts as your own and not as an absolute truth. if you do, that's when your ideas get challenged

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.

 

[filthy tugboat]

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).

You do know this question has been asked for millenia... right? Like long before Muhammad was born. This 'prediction' was not a prediction in any meaningful sense, it was a comment on current, previous and (if trends hold) future events.

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.

Indeed, there are several events where cause cannot be determined at all, such as radioactive decay and some functions of quantum mechanics.

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.

Or there is no creator at all and the jump from the beginning of the universe to "creator" is unnecessary from the get go.

(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.)

A poor argument to be sure.

So the Creator must be Self-Subsistent and One, without like or equal.

Or there is no creator.

 

[Man of Faith]

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.