Who Created God?

[DavyCrocket2003]

What if God's God created him???

 

[Riverwolf]

If gods did not command anything, then people could not obey or disobey them. I think that we are getting into semantic games here. I never said that God "had a mouth" or that a "mouth" was necessary to issue a command. On the other hand, for most people of faith, God defines the moral framework that we operate in. In that sense, he does issue commands, and people choose to obey or disobey the commands.

I'm really getting tired of using the "well, most people see it like this..." argument.

Nor should you insist that my word "God" match everyone's usage, because there are a lot of different definitions, even among Hindus.

The thing is, because so many people use the word differently, I believe that a neutral party using it must attempt to represent them all in his or her arguments.

Most certainly, but it is one of those phrases that gets interpreted variously in various Hindu sects. Gods ultimately have to be anthropomorphic, because their humanness is what makes them ultimately most useful for human needs.

I disagree. I hardly believe Brahman to be anthropomorphic, and I don't believe the anthropomorphic gods that I worship literally exist.

Again, you are drifting into a semantic argument. This is not about what the verb "invent" means. It is about whether gods--as most people conceive of them--exist anywhere but in human imagination.

And I'm arguing that they exist deeper than the imagination. I fail to see how my semantics are inappropriate, as it's relevant to what we're arguing. I believe the imagination to be conscious; therefore, if humans invented gods, that's definitely where they'd be. That's after all where superheroes are. But I'm arguing that gods exist deep in the human psyche, which means they weren't simply invented.

Complexity arises from inanimate forces in our universe. Scientists understand the role of simple-to-complex evolution. People use God as an alternative explanation. Human beings are much more complex than anything that they intelligently create. Since the concept of a god is anthropomorphic, it is similarly more complex than that which it creates. That is how most people conceive of their God, in any case.

Again with the "well, most people see it like this..." argument.

I believe God (Brahman) to be the underlying force behind what scientists have found, not an alternative.

I don't really need my Ph.D. in linguistics to tell the difference between a proper noun and a title, but you asked for it. The word "God" is a proper name. A word like "sri" or "reverend" is a title when it precedes a name. Titles can become proper nouns when used as subjects and objects in grammatical constructions, but the word "god" is almost never used as a title.

Even though it, in fact, most often is... (when a lower case and an indefinite article is used, anyway), but you do have a good point here. I'll give this one to you.

 

[839311]

That may be, but if it is said that the universe MUST be explained by a god because of its complexity, then the same would apply to god. If you believe that there is a complex god that keeps its complexity private, it should not be said that the complexity of the universe must require an explanation. This is a logical inconsistency.

Yes, its an unnecessary and poor argument.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm really getting tired of using the "well, most people see it like this..." argument.

Sorry, but many of the disagreements that you and I have are about what we mean when we use words like "god" and "universe". If you want to criticize my statements--which you have a perfect right to do--then I am going to insist that the criticism take into account the actual meanings of the words I was using when I made those statements.

The thing is, because so many people use the word differently, I believe that a neutral party using it must attempt to represent them all in his or her arguments.

What constitutes a "neutral party" if not conventional usage? Just because you choose to use words in an unconventional way, that does not oblige me to accommodate your usage. If you decide that "God" means "peanut butter", that does not oblige me to admit that I smear God on bread.

I disagree. I hardly believe Brahman to be anthropomorphic, and I don't believe the anthropomorphic gods that I worship literally exist.

I have no problem with this, but I have not agreed to change my definition of a "god" to suit your unconventional usage. What most people mean by "god" is an anthropomorphic being. Word usage is an empirical question, and we can verify usage by examining what people actually say when they use the word "god". If people usually attribute anthropomorphic properties to gods, then it is legitimate to construe gods as anthropomorphic beings, regardless of your wishes in the matter. If you want to use that same word to refer to a different concept, then you ought to acknowledge loud and clear that you are using the word in a way that is inconsistent with conventional usage. If someone chooses to equate "God" with nature, then I'm quite happy to say that I commune with "God" in that way. I'm just not going to go along with the idea that this is the same "God" that most human beings worship in their various churches and temples. And, in fact, that is why I choose not to use the word "God" as a synonym for "nature"--because that just confuses the issue of whether or not "God" exists.

And I'm arguing that they exist deeper than the imagination. I fail to see how my semantics are inappropriate, as it's relevant to what we're arguing. I believe the imagination to be conscious; therefore, if humans invented gods, that's definitely where they'd be. That's after all where superheroes are. But I'm arguing that gods exist deep in the human psyche, which means they weren't simply invented.

Look, you either do or do not exist. You may be a figment of my imagination, but I doubt it. As for gods, I believe them to be a figment of your and my imagination. They do not, in reality, exist. We can disagree on whether or not they exist, but let's not engage in sophistry.

I believe God (Brahman) to be the underlying force behind what scientists have found, not an alternative.

And I believe "God" to be a totally different approach to the question of how human beings came into existence. We were not planned. No super-powerful, super-knowledgeable being deliberately decided to create us. There are no super-powerful beings that we can pray to for comfort and protections. We exist as the result of chaotic interactions between simpler processes, not a single "underlying force". We are evolved, not planned. Theism really is a philosophical position that one can deny. It cannot survive just because we choose to redefine word usage.

 

[Dan4reason]

What if God's God created him???

"You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:35).
"There is no one holy like the Lord; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God" (1 Samuel 2:2).
"How great you are, O Sovereign Lord! There is no one like you, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears" (2 Samuel 7:22).
"So that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other" (1 Kings 8:60).
"I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me" (Isaiah 45:5).
"For this is what the Lord says — he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited — he says: `I am the Lord, and there is no other’ " (Isaiah 45:18).
"Declare what is to be, present it — let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:21-22).
"Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).

The bible is saying that there is only one God. As Isaiah mentions, in the 46:9 he is God and there is no other. Unless you wish to translate the bible in a funny way, you will have to accept the fact that true believers in the bible believe in one God. They can only worship one God.

And by the way, how does explaining the complexity of God with an intelligent designer solve the problem of complexity in existence?

 

[Riverwolf]

Sorry, but many of the disagreements that you and I have are about what we mean when we use words like "god" and "universe". If you want to criticize my statements--which you have a perfect right to do--then I am going to insist that the criticism take into account the actual meanings of the words I was using when I made those statements.

What constitutes a "neutral party" if not conventional usage? Just because you choose to use words in an unconventional way, that does not oblige me to accommodate your usage. If you decide that "God" means "peanut butter", that does not oblige me to admit that I smear God on bread.

I have no problem with this, but I have not agreed to change my definition of a "god" to suit your unconventional usage. What most people mean by "god" is an anthropomorphic being. Word usage is an empirical question, and we can verify usage by examining what people actually say when they use the word "god". If people usually attribute anthropomorphic properties to gods, then it is legitimate to construe gods as anthropomorphic beings, regardless of your wishes in the matter. If you want to use that same word to refer to a different concept, then you ought to acknowledge loud and clear that you are using the word in a way that is inconsistent with conventional usage. If someone chooses to equate "God" with nature, then I'm quite happy to say that I commune with "God" in that way. I'm just not going to go along with the idea that this is the same "God" that most human beings worship in their various churches and temples. And, in fact, that is why I choose not to use the word "God" as a synonym for "nature"--because that just confuses the issue of whether or not "God" exists.

I'm people, too, you know, and what I believe isn't limited to just me.

There are many legitimate definitions of God, and I don't think there's a single umbrella definition that can be used. Therefore, I say it's best to specify which God you're talking about rather than generalize based on a majority usage.

Look, you either do or do not exist. You may be a figment of my imagination, but I doubt it.

No, I'm a figment of my imagination.

As for gods, I believe them to be a figment of your and my imagination. They do not, in reality, exist. We can disagree on whether or not they exist, but let's not engage in sophistry.

I believe gods are deeper than simple imagination. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, here, as we've clearly had different experiences.

And I believe "God" to be a totally different approach to the question of how human beings came into existence. We were not planned.

I believe that.

No super-powerful, super-knowledgeable being deliberately decided to create us.

I believe that, too.

There are no super-powerful beings that we can pray to for comfort and protections.

I don't pray to super-powerful beings that live in some place.

We exist as the result of chaotic interactions between simpler processes, not a single "underlying force". We are evolved, not planned. Theism really is a philosophical position that one can deny. It cannot survive just because we choose to redefine word usage.

I'm not redefining word-usage; I have a different concept of theism than what the West is used to. It's not new at all.

Those interactions you mentioned happened because of that underlying force, in my opinion. Is that force self-conscious? I don't know. I haven't experienced a universal consciousness. I have, however, experienced the oneness of all things.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm people, too, you know, and what I believe isn't limited to just me.

That wasn't my point. It was that the language which you criticized was not based on your particular usage, yet you criticized my statements on the basis of how you defined the words.

There are many legitimate definitions of God, and I don't think there's a single umbrella definition that can be used. Therefore, I say it's best to specify which God you're talking about rather than generalize based on a majority usage.

I disagree. Unless all parties agree to some specialized usage, majority usage is the only legitimate basis for judging the meaning of what we say. Dictionaries do not record all conceivable definitions for words, only those that reflect common usage.

I believe gods are deeper than simple imagination. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, here, as we've clearly had different experiences.

If by "deeper than imagination", you mean that they are distinct from mythical figures such as Santa Claus and leprechauns, then we must agree to disagree on this point.

I don't pray to super-powerful beings that live in some place.

Most people do, and it was those super-powerful beings that I was referring to in the statements that you criticized.

I'm not redefining word-usage; I have a different concept of theism than what the West is used to. It's not new at all.

In my experience, the differences have been exaggerated, but I am not dogmatic about it. I have just come to take such claims with a large grain of salt. And when I visited India, I was not persuaded otherwise. The behavior of devout believers in India towards their gods is not really much different from that of devout believers in the West, although details of ceremonies may differ. Adherents of all theistic religions tend to interact with their gods as if they were high status human beings. That is, they assume universal postures of obeisance. They lavish praise and supplicate. They look to gods for protection and favor, just as they look to ordinary human leaders for protection and favor. Gods really do have human characteristics for most people, and I see nothing wrong with pointing out that very obvious fact. It is also true that more sophisticated believers in both Eastern and Western religious traditions are troubled by blatant anthropomorphism, and they have sought to distance themselves from that position. However, I do not believe that even the more sophisticated believers are successful in shedding anthropomorphic baggage. Anthropomorphism is really essential to the maintenance of theistic belief in society at large.

Those interactions you mentioned happened because of that underlying force, in my opinion. Is that force self-conscious? I don't know. I haven't experienced a universal consciousness. I have, however, experienced the oneness of all things.

Analogy is the basis of human cognition, so I am not surprised that "oneness" is so fundamental to religion. After all, that is what analogy does--it allows us to understand things by establishing similarities with past experience. Pick any two objects, and you can always establish some properties that they share in common. All things are more or less similar to each other. Separateness (negation of oneness), however, is just as important a concept. Neti neti.

 

[Poisonshady313]

When someone posits that everything was created by God, and the following question is: "Who created God?"

That is a stupid question.

The idea that God is the "first cause" or "primary mover" doesn't require anyone to ask "What caused the first cause?"..... because the person to ask such a thing would have to be ignorant of terms like "first" or "primary".

If God is unique in being eternal and all-powerful, then why must it be asked what creator created the creator? Why does nobody who asks this question recognize what a stupid question it is?

 

[Copernicus]

The question is no more stupid than the assertion that God created everything else.

 

[McBell]

The bible is saying that there is only one God. As Isaiah mentions, in the 46:9 he is God and there is no other. Unless you wish to translate the bible in a funny way, you will have to accept the fact that true believers in the bible believe in one God. They can only worship one God.

And by the way, how does explaining the complexity of God with an intelligent designer solve the problem of complexity in existence?

Problem here is that there are other texts that claim the same thing.
Then there are texts that claim multiple gods.

You have not proven that there is only one true god.
You have merely given evidence that Christians are to believe in only one god.

 

[McBell]

The idea that God is the "first cause" or "primary mover" doesn't require anyone to ask "What caused the first cause?".....

When the a fore mentioned argument starts with something like "Every cause has to have a causer" then yes, you will have to explain why god the only possible exception to your premise.

If God is unique in being eternal and all-powerful, then why must it be asked what creator created the creator? Why does nobody who asks this question recognize what a stupid question it is?

Because it is not a stupid question, regardless of how badly you need/want it to be.
Your not being able to answer the question does not make it a stupid question.

 

[logician]

Maybe there is no "creation" or "creator" at all, the universe is God's reflection, emanation. Just like the rays of the sun are not "created" by the sun but they are "integral" part of the sun, without the rays the sun is not the sun, so maybe universe is just "integral" part of the God.

Or much more likely, there is no "god", and matter and energy have existed forever.:sleep:

 

[Peacewise]

Err, the monotheistic God was made up by piecing together all the various polytheistic Gods and labeling it the One God.
Seems kinda ironic since just recently some scientists have taken a bunch of components of life forms and 'stitched' them together to form a new life form.

As for the 'actual' God, well the model goes that God exists beyond time and hence has always existed, in the sense that always is also beyond time. God was 'before' time.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Err, the monotheistic God was made up by piecing together all the various polytheistic Gods and labeling it the One God.
Seems kinda ironic since just recently some scientists have taken a bunch of components of life forms and 'stitched' them together to form a new life form.

Yes, but no scientist ever said that the new life form was the one true life form and that all others before it were false.

 

[Riverwolf]

That wasn't my point. It was that the language which you criticized was not based on your particular usage, yet you criticized my statements on the basis of how you defined the words.

...uh, what?

I disagree. Unless all parties agree to some specialized usage, majority usage is the only legitimate basis for judging the meaning of what we say. Dictionaries do not record all conceivable definitions for words, only those that reflect common usage.

I say it's not a legitimate basis for judgment, but simply being indolent.

Dictionaries alone aren't always adequate, especially when it should be common knowledge that with words like "god," there are multiple legitimate definitions.

If by "deeper than imagination", you mean that they are distinct from mythical figures such as Santa Claus and leprechauns, then we must agree to disagree on this point.

I view Santa Claus as one of the gods, and therefore he is in the same realm. Leprechauns, on the other hand, have no significance after childhood as far as I know.

Most people do, and it was those super-powerful beings that I was referring to in the statements that you criticized.

That should have been specified.

In my experience, the differences have been exaggerated, but I am not dogmatic about it. I have just come to take such claims with a large grain of salt. And when I visited India, I was not persuaded otherwise. The behavior of devout believers in India towards their gods is not really much different from that of devout believers in the West, although details of ceremonies may differ. Adherents of all theistic religions tend to interact with their gods as if they were high status human beings. That is, they assume universal postures of obeisance. They lavish praise and supplicate. They look to gods for protection and favor, just as they look to ordinary human leaders for protection and favor. Gods really do have human characteristics for most people, and I see nothing wrong with pointing out that very obvious fact. It is also true that more sophisticated believers in both Eastern and Western religious traditions are troubled by blatant anthropomorphism, and they have sought to distance themselves from that position. However, I do not believe that even the more sophisticated believers are successful in shedding anthropomorphic baggage. Anthropomorphism is really essential to the maintenance of theistic belief in society at large.

The differences between popular theistic beliefs are not dissimilar. That I agree with. However, popular theism does not accurately represent the full essence of religion, just like popular consciousness of fiction doesn't represent all its nuances. (Popular consciousness of Superman, for example, isn't exactly great, and from my experiences, most people HATE classic literature.)

Analogy is the basis of human cognition, so I am not surprised that "oneness" is so fundamental to religion. After all, that is what analogy does--it allows us to understand things by establishing similarities with past experience. Pick any two objects, and you can always establish some properties that they share in common. All things are more or less similar to each other. Separateness (negation of oneness), however, is just as important a concept. Neti neti.

Separateness is the default position, so of course it's important to understand. In my consciousness, you and I are two separate individuals.

However, that essential oneness is also present, even scientifically; all things are ultimately energy. Everything is interconnected.

 

[Riverwolf]

As for the 'actual' God, well the model goes that God exists beyond time and hence has always existed, in the sense that always is also beyond time. God was 'before' time.

Except that "before time" is an oxymoron, and gets us nowhere.

In the Bhagavad-Gita, when Krishna reveals his ultimate form, he declares himself to be Time Itself. Since time appears to be one of the ultimate drivers of what we can perceive, I think that's a good analogy; that the Ultimate Reality is one with Time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Or much more likely, there is no "god", and matter and energy have existed forever.:sleep:

Why is that much more likely?

 

[Peacewise]

Except that "before time" is an oxymoron, and gets us nowhere.

In the Bhagavad-Gita, when Krishna reveals his ultimate form, he declares himself to be Time Itself. Since time appears to be one of the ultimate drivers of what we can perceive, I think that's a good analogy; that the Ultimate Reality is one with Time.

indeed, hence my quotes around the word 'before', perhaps a better word would be outside of time. Perhaps a way around this oxymoron, is for there to be a time frame within the universe that God created and then another time frame outside of the universe.

 

[McBell]

indeed, hence my quotes around the word 'before', perhaps a better word would be outside of time. Perhaps a way around this oxymoron, is for there to be a time frame within the universe that God created and then another time frame outside of the universe.

Why wouldn't youjust combine the two time frames into one?

Or does that not work because god has to remain outside of time?

 

[Riverwolf]

indeed, hence my quotes around the word 'before', perhaps a better word would be outside of time. Perhaps a way around this oxymoron, is for there to be a time frame within the universe that God created and then another time frame outside of the universe.

I'm afraid that simply doesn't make any sense to me, either. :sorry1: