Who Created God?

[Riverwolf]

Including the nature of reality gives this concept far more depth, and is the right explanation for why reality exists.

Is this answer not sufficient for you? If not, what kind of answer are you looking for?

I didn't say it was wrong, necessarily. I'm saying that it's not satisfying for most people. For me, personally, it's just about dead-on. (I prefer the more accurate Chinese term, Dao, however.)

 

[Dan4reason]

Why do you form conclusions without evidence? Let me ask you two questions....
1)Do we have a cure for cancer?
2) is it possible that one exists, but we haven't discovered it yet?

We do have some radiation treatments for cancer but we do not have one big cure. There may one day be a cure for cancer. However, we have to accept the possibility that there may not be one big fix to cancer.

So, whats you point?

 

[Dan4reason]

I would say we have the universe to explain him (or her, or it) since I don't see God and the universe as being seperable, they're one and the same.

Is the universe alive? Does it have any self awareness or is it non-life?

 

[839311]

I'm saying that it's not satisfying for most people.

There are all kinds of exciting creation stories offered by all sorts of religions that could satisfy the particular tastes of the seeker, even if the explanations are empty of any truth, or reason. This isn't necessarily bad - I think a more satisfying explanation could potentially benefit some people, perhaps by giving them some structure that can help them function more effectively.

 

[Copernicus]

As to why human beings invent gods, one can offer a great many explanations for that, as well.

And what is the reason for those explanations? (I am aware of the fact that there are several mythologies, that, BTW, are all very similar. Ever read Campbell?)

I have read Campbell, but I don't really see the relevance to my point. People are obviously prone to inventing gods that don't really exist. There are common themes to those inventions, because gods fulfill needs that are common to our species--for example, the need to have power over one's circumstances. Gods have ultimate control over reality, so they can improve our circumstances if we can influence them to do so. Also, some of the commonality in our mythologies has to do with chains of mutual influence across cultures. Myths spread and get modified to suit the needs of other cultures.

 

[EverChanging]

In regard to a theistic god, his reasoning is correct. Saying that "God did it" is not an explanation, it's a lack of one, and such a god's own complexity would need to be explained, as Dawkins pointed out.

However, such questions bore me now. I don't believe in that type of god at all, on any level, intellectually or emotionally. As for those who do, many will simply cling to their belief in fear. I don't think that is exactly healthy, although I suppose for some people, spiritual beliefs can be valuable even if they aren't true, so long as they distinguish them from a scientific fact and don't harm anyone based on it.

 

[839311]

and such a god's own complexity would need to be explained

Why would it need to be explained?

 

[Copernicus]

Why would it need to be explained?

Well, God is offered as an explanation of the complexity that we observe in nature. So it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that such a complex being itself similarly requires an explanation. Do you not see the point?

 

[839311]

Well, God is offered as an explanation of the complexity that we observe in nature. So it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that such a complex being itself similarly requires an explanation. Do you not see the point?

No, I don't see why his complexity needs to be explained.

Suppose God exists, and he wants to keep the nature of his complex existence private, and so he does not share this knowledge with us. I'm fine with that. I don't need to have the knowledge of the nature of his existence.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have read Campbell, but I don't really see the relevance to my point. People are obviously prone to inventing gods that don't really exist. There are common themes to those inventions, because gods fulfill needs that are common to our species--for example, the need to have power over one's circumstances. Gods have ultimate control over reality, so they can improve our circumstances if we can influence them to do so. Also, some of the commonality in our mythologies has to do with chains of mutual influence across cultures. Myths spread and get modified to suit the needs of other cultures.

Funny then how some religions just teach to love God selflessly- that is, without any thought or desire for personal gain.

The point is, I think it's inaccurate to say that people invented gods in the way someone invented superheroes. It's more likely that, over a period of time, people subconsciously started turning elements of nature into gods. That's not the same thing as inventing, which is deliberate and by one person.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, God is offered as an explanation of the complexity that we observe in nature. So it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that such a complex being itself similarly requires an explanation.

That doesn't answer the question.

Besides, you must understand that there are different God-based explanations; not all of them are based on a creator God.

 

[EverChanging]

No, I don't see why his complexity needs to be explained.

Suppose God exists, and he wants to keep the nature of his complex existence private, and so he does not share this knowledge with us. I'm fine with that. I don't need to have the knowledge of the nature of his existence.

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.

 

[Sunstone]

I've heard we don't know who, exactly, created god, but we know most of the parts were bought at Radio Shack.

 

[Erebus]

Is the universe alive? Does it have any self awareness or is it non-life?

I couldn't possibly say. It's possible the universe is a living thing and that the planets and galaxies are its cells, but I don't think anybody can know for sure.

For me though, the universe has most of the qualities of an omnimax deity. All power and knowledge are held within the universe (or multiverse depending on how you perceive reality) and obviously the universe is omnipresent. In my mind, this makes the universe itself divine whether it's alive or not

 

[Copernicus]

Funny then how some religions just teach to love God selflessly- that is, without any thought or desire for personal gain.

God sits at the top of the human social hierarchy. As such, he naturally commands the loyalty and love of his minions. Think of him as your Big Brother. Have you never read Orwell's 1984?

The point is, I think it's inaccurate to say that people invented gods in the way someone invented superheroes. It's more likely that, over a period of time, people subconsciously started turning elements of nature into gods. That's not the same thing as inventing, which is deliberate and by one person.

Come on, Riverwolf. That is the same thing as inventing. And groups are quite capable of inventing things. I've attended enough committee meetings to know that.

That doesn't answer the question.

I thought that it did, but I may have misunderstood exactly what kind of answer you were looking for. Could you restate the question?

Besides, you must understand that there are different God-based explanations; not all of them are based on a creator God.

I understand that perfectly well. The proper name "God", however, is normally understood to be a creator god.

 

[Azakel]

I've heard we don't know who, exactly, created god, but we know most of the parts were bought at Radio Shack.

Deus Ex Machina?

 

[Riverwolf]

God sits at the top of the human social hierarchy. As such, he naturally commands the loyalty and love of his minions. Think of him as your Big Brother. Have you never read Orwell's 1984?

God doesn't command anything. God doesn't have a mouth with which to command.

In my cosmology, who you just described is Indra (our equivalent to Zeus), who does command those things. You haven't described God.

When I hear God, I think "Tat Tvam Asi." I assume you know this phrase, right?

Come on, Riverwolf. That is the same thing as inventing.

Not how I've always heard it used. I've always heard that inventing something was done by one person (or, yes, by a group) in one lifetime, and, here's the key term, deliberately.

I thought that it did, but I may have misunderstood exactly what kind of answer you were looking for. Could you restate the question?

I don't understand why using God as an explanation for the universe must be followed with an explanation for God's complexity.

I understand that perfectly well. The proper name "God", however, is normally understood to be a creator god.

Well, I don't believe "normal" exists. I also don't believe "God" to be a proper name, but a title. For example, the closest we get to a real proper name for the God of the Bible is "I Am That I Am." The others are titles.

 

[Copernicus]

God doesn't command anything. God doesn't have a mouth with which to command.

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.

In my cosmology, who you just described is Indra (our equivalent to Zeus), who does command those things. You haven't described God.

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

When I hear God, I think "Tat Tvam Asi." I assume you know this phrase, right?

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.

Not how I've always heard it used. I've always heard that inventing something was done by one person (or, yes, by a group) in one lifetime, and, here's the key term, deliberately.

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.

I don't understand why using God as an explanation for the universe must be followed with an explanation for God's complexity.

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.

Well, I don't believe "normal" exists. I also don't believe "God" to be a proper name, but a title. For example, the closest we get to a real proper name for the God of the Bible is "I Am That I Am." The others are titles.

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.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

What if god is an emergent property of the universe?

Wow. I like that idea.

Here is a quote from a revelation where Jesus is trying to describe God:

He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons; And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets. And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man. The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God. Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand? Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

It seems he is unable to properly convey a true understanding of who/what God is. Other than to say, he's there, and you can see him, but you don't comprehend him.

 

[logician]

What if god is an emergent property of the universe?

Then in a sense the universe created god, therefore, we should worship the universe.:sleep: