Consequent Infidel

whats up all....beeing agnostic..I always look into debates between atheists and theists..one of te issues usually beeing raised in most debates is "if god created the universe who created god?" arguments, so I wanted to hear comments on this kind of argumentst..can it logically be debunked/supported ? I once saw an article on this somewhere else and there is some kind of a deduction can bee used ..

when we assume that god exists and he created the universe.

the created (us) are unable to create.

then the creator is not created.

because if we asked :

can the creator be created and the created be a creator?


if we looked at the created (the universe creatures)

they can't create.

and since that is true then the creator (god) cannot be created.

because

1- having an endless string of creatures and creators is logically false

2- shortning the string to the universe only, but our premise here was assuming that god exists...

any thoughts? what are the negative thoughts on the "who created god" arguments and can it be proven that there can be a creator for god? and sorry for the crappy english.

rainbow walking

You're talking about infinite regress. The theist may argue a god as the ground of all being, the causeless cause and a host of other speculatives.

One question though, when you say the created can't create, what is it they can't create? This postulate is too vague.

Paul2

I think the argument that theists use is that whatever began has a cause and since god never began as he has allways existed, thus needs no cause. i think it was someone named kalam that thought of this? not sure on that one.

Mike

So far the posts are irrelevant at least to the Biblical God. You seem to be defining created wrong. The biblical word translated as "created" should be translated as "organized." Thus the material used in the "creation" may be uncreated in the sense of ex nihilo. Thus, there is no tension between creator and created. All is eternal and simply changing form as in E = M(CC)and/or M = E/(CC). We are learning how to use the formula in the first manifestation. God has also been using it in the second manifestation as in mass as a result of a ratio between energy and velocity. Hence God spake (acoustic energy) and there was light (visible energy + particles) and spake again and there was mass (particle + energy). Well, we are getting at the relationship between stars and planets. Now we just need to look for an an acoustic element and the Bible is verified. Hm...if only we had evidence for some kind of a big BANG!

mattdamore

Probably the existence of a new ontology. Not speaking quantitatively, but qualitatively. Like creating a new color.

Just a possibility.

MattDamore

mattdamore

But I think that the question is 'why' does it not begin to exist.
Does it have anything to do with it's nature? Within the context of the Kalam arguement are their any implications that the nature of the cause must possess as being the cause of all time, space, matter, and energy? Is their any ontological ramifications?

MattDamore

mattdamore

Do you see any contradictions in these two statements? If not, why not?

and

I also missed sufficient justification for this whole paragraph. How do you make all these scientific connections from the simple exegisis of a word used in the Bible in the original language? The naunces of the explanation seem to me to be a little over-kill.

fishbulb

Asking who created god is typically a challenge to the reasoning behind the theist argument that God must exist because the Universe couldn't just spring into existence on its own, nor could it have existed for all time. It illustrates the fact that this argument uses special pleading: it is impossible for something to exist without having been created, except for god. No good reason is given, however, for why nothing else can exist in this way but a god could, or for how we could possibly know this.

No one knows if it is possible for things to simply begin to exist without any cause whatsoever (though we can observe what appears to be precisely this phenomena), and no one knows if it is possible for something to have just always existed. There may even be hard biological limits on our ability to understand space and time. But if it is possible for a god to have always existed, why wouldn't it be possible for the Universe to have always existed instead or as well?

mattdamore

This begs the question.

What reasons have you heard. Maybe we can discuss them here. Furthermore, you even admit further down your post that the Universe can be admitted to be the necessary existent, thereby removing the relevance of a creator, and, consequently, God.

Kalam proponents agree with this. The first premise in their arguement is the metaphysical truth that whatever begins to exist has a cause, which is derived from the datum that something cannot come from nothing.

The question is what one means when one says exists. Existence would mean something different for God, considering His existence participates, sans creation, without time, matter, energy, space, etc . . . I guess we could argue on the meaningfullness of such an existence.



Because different philosophical and scientific arguements are raised that render the infinite duration of the universe false. And different reasons are provided that render the necessary and qualitatively infinite existence of God to be the necessary consequent of being the creator of all time, space, matter, and energy. Thus, making God infinite (in the qualitative sense), and the universe not (in the quantative or the qualitative sense).

theophilus

Sorry, but you've been hanging around Hugh Ross too long.
Your Hebrew is wrong and so is your theology (as is Dr. Ross').