If God exists, who created God? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15140756
Let's say God exists, and God created the universe because the universe had to be created by something or someone.

Well then who created God? How did God come to be? Did a hyper-intelligent all-powerful being just appear out of nowhere? If so, how?
Last edited by Unthinking Majority on 04 Dec 2020 00:32, edited 1 time in total.
#15140757
My personal opinion is that we only have a very limited understanding of space-time based on the physics of our universe. Beyond our universe space-time could be totally different, and in fact could be cyclical, in an infinite loop.

Maybe ultimately nothing is created or destroyed, things just loop in waves and cycles like the seasons or the tides.
#15140765
God by definition Is self-existent, self-subsistent, and His Being is Eternity, outside Time. So He has no need of being created, being the Creator.
#15140794
Man created God. That is why Man is ordered to worship God. Without Man, God disappears in a poof of smoke.
#15140797
Unthinking Majority wrote:My personal opinion is that we only have a very limited understanding of space-time based on the physics of our universe. Beyond our universe space-time could be totally different, and in fact could be cyclical, in an infinite loop.

Maybe ultimately nothing is created or destroyed, things just loop in waves and cycles like the seasons or the tides.


Something would have to be created from nothing whatever you believe. Whether that is God or the Primordial Soup. And the same would be true if we were in an eternal loop for the creation of matter in any regards. Buy to fully understand matter is to understand energy (E=MC2) and the speed of light squared. If the laws of force are eternal - with or without the existence of matter, and the expansion of the 'fabric' of the universe is linked to the speed of light somehow (I think it is) and that is linked to time, then at least the ingredients of matter can exist from nothing even if understanding the dynamics of how it all unites for creation is not. This is something I have questioned myself for some time. What of the equation of M=E/C2? And is this important in understanding everything? Perhaps a question for another forum.

Nonetheless I too believe time is eternal. Not a loop per se but perhaps your experience of it may be described as a loop. That is to say all time exists simultaneously but you exist at one point of it and the mechanics of consciousness gives you the appearance of a linear motion of time and when you die you would return to the beginning again because of it. Mulitiuniverses might allow free choice as well. And being speed can manipulate our experience of time, means that there is merit in this notion whatever you believe. How that links to God, well it doesn't. But if God exists at all, I do believe you need to look beyond moral objectivity and consider it a force of intelligence. And if God was a force and the laws of forces are eternal, then God wouldn't need to be created and that would answer this threads title.
#15140811
Unthinking Majority wrote:If God exists, who created God?

Man, obviously.

It's a sim, a pixelated universe, and we are all players on a stage acting out imaginary lives governed by algorithms created to amuse bored teenagers on their quantum computers.


;)
Last edited by ingliz on 03 Dec 2020 19:04, edited 1 time in total.
#15140815
Unthinking Majority wrote:My personal opinion is that we only have a very limited understanding of space-time based on the physics of our universe. Beyond our universe space-time could be totally different, and in fact could be cyclical, in an infinite loop.

Maybe ultimately nothing is created or destroyed, things just loop in waves and cycles like the seasons or the tides.



That wouldn't solve the problem, it doesn't explain why there would be an infinitely looping universe in the first place? And even if it did there would still be the question of why this particular infinitely looping universe and not some other infinitely looping universe?
#15140820
annatar1914 wrote:God by definition Is self-existent, self-subsistent, and His Being is Eternity, outside Time.


Aseity doesn't solve the problem either, Swinburne holds to self-existent, self-subsistent eternality and still takes God's existence as brute fact. Broad logical necessity is the only answer to the question, it may be an answer that only an infinite God can understand but the alternative is a logical absurdity that doesn't offer any coherent content to understand.
#15140830
Sivad wrote:Aseity doesn't solve the problem either, Swinburne holds to self-existent, self-subsistent eternality and still takes God's existence as brute fact. Broad logical necessity is the only answer to the question, it may be an answer that only an infinite God can understand but the alternative is a logical absurdity that doesn't offer any coherent content to understand.


Natural theology, looking at the things of God with the logic and reason He gave us, only goes so far. This is because the knowledge of God is experiential and a lived life working on getting ever closer to Him and His ways. A mind darkened by evils such as is the condition of fallen mankind, has a hard time doing that, without His help. The first step is admitting that this is the case.

After all, we really know in our minds that ultimately there has to be an Un-caused Cause at the basis of everything else. But it's a far greater leap from this the ''god of the philosophers and savants'' to the God of revelation.
#15140851
Oxymoron wrote:You are then presupposing that nothing is the natural state of things.


No, it's just that Nothing doesn't require an explanation because there's no thing to be explained. Once there's something then there's a why or a how, all somethings have a reason for their existence whether we know the reason or not.
#15140853
Sivad wrote:No, it's just that Nothing doesn't require an explanation because there's no thing to be explained. Once there's something then there's a why or a how, all somethings have a reason for their existence whether we know the reason or not.


In my opinion something is the constant state of reality, meaning there does not have to be something before something.
#15140855
annatar1914 wrote:Natural theology, looking at the things of God with the logic and reason He gave us, only goes so far. This is because the knowledge of God is experiential and a lived life working on getting ever closer to Him and His ways. A mind darkened by evils such as is the condition of fallen mankind, has a hard time doing that, without His help. The first step is admitting that this is the case.

After all, we really know in our minds that ultimately there has to be an Un-caused Cause at the basis of everything else. But it's a far greater leap from this the ''god of the philosophers and savants'' to the God of revelation.


I don't disagree but most of the religious people I know don't seem all that enlightened, it's more dogma than revelation with most religious types.
#15140857
Oxymoron wrote:In my opinion something is the constant state of reality, meaning there does not have to be something before something.


This explanation is only valid if you accept infinity - which is something that would need to be explained. That is to say what is infinity and why does its state means that it's existence consists of everything?
#15140860
B0ycey wrote:This explanation is only valid if you accept infinity - which is something that would need to be explained. That is to say what is infinity and why does its state means that it's existence consists of everything?


I think that is like trying to understand why water is wet. Being that it is only our interpretation of the state of water.
Meaning everything is based on perspective, and observation. This is really well illustrated in quantum mechanics.
#15140861
Oxymoron wrote: there does not have to be something before something.


Well there's something metaphysically prior to everything until you get to a necessary something which has the reason for its existence within itself and couldn't not exist or be anything other than what it is. When you start contemplating what kind of thing might a necessary something be that's prior to all contingent things you wind up at the God of the philosophers.
#15140883
Oxymoron wrote:I think that is like trying to understand why water is wet. Being that it is only our interpretation of the state of water.
Meaning everything is based on perspective, and observation. This is really well illustrated in quantum mechanics.


Well water can be explained by the state and behaviour of liquid and our preception of wet as a sense. Which then needs to be explained by consciousness of existence which has befuddled philosophers for centuries but they still have come up with explanations nonetheless. But we can at least understand that our organ of the brain is the catalyst of consciousness in any case which is more significant than you explaining what infinity is just now.

The point was made by Sivad. The state of nothing doesn't need explaining as no-thing is there to explain. When there is something, you need to explain that. And if your answer is infinity or that is the natural state of things, you are moving the goalposts for what you have to explain.
#15140887
B0ycey wrote:
The point was made by Sivad. The state of nothing doesn't need explaining as no-thing is there to explain. When there is something, you need to explain that. And if your answer is infinity or that is the natural state of things, you are moving the goalposts for what you have to explain.


No that is not inherently true.
Lets put it this way, it is because it is. Your question is like asking why is Blue Blue, and not White.
#15140889
Sivad wrote:I don't disagree but most of the religious people I know don't seem all that enlightened, it's more dogma than revelation with most religious types.


I can't say what's in another's heart, but God and man work together in a synergy, both are required for what enlightenment a man has. Understanding is one thing, but knowing and loving, and loving other human beings as a reflection of that love, is very difficult, at least for me.
#15140902
Oxymoron wrote:No that is not inherently true.
Lets put it this way, it is because it is. Your question is like asking why is Blue Blue, and not White.


It is inherently true.

And no it isn't. Colour can be explained by light wave length and consciousness. Do you know Newton and Opticks?

You can't just saying something exists and that is its natural state. Or you can but then you have to explain why that is its natural state. Why? Because it is something. Or a best you have to explain what infinity is. Why? Because you say it has always existed. Either way there are questions you need to explain.

And if you haven't noticed your examples can be explained FYI which isn't helping your cause.

Here's *another* Trump-wet-dream dictatorship, and[…]

The UK made a big fuss about the EU's Article 16 e[…]

Canada to take COVAX vaccines, won't share doses […]

Your kind of "original thought and express[…]