Did God create God?

[blazeofglory]

This question seems funny, doesn't it. But it has some stuff. What is more it embeds the question all of us are overtly or covertly asking and yet we were never answered.

We keep on asking God create all of us.

Yet the logic is that who could create God. And What is God? And Is God desirous as we are and enjoy creating things the way we enjoy building homes, marrying, begetting children, working and making money, buying and shopping. This is really a difficult question.

Maybe asking question is easy, and indeed answering them is difficult. This is the luxury we have in essence.

[PoeticPassions]

I have thought about this issue, extensively, and have not come up with any answer. Most of these types of philosophical questions do not have an answer or an abolute truth to them.

This is where the fallacy of God lies for me, however. Because many dispute the Big Bang theory due to the fact that something came from nothing. But I see this in the same way. God had to come from something, right? But where did that something come from? How does something create itself? It is quite a paradox.

[muhsin]

I wonder if there is any living soul who could answer this question. LOL

[amarna]

You're asking if the First cause has a cause. I'd say No, by definition.

[jekan blazer]

I wonder if there is any living soul who could answer this question. LOL

lmao! thats funny, even if it is true...

[NikolaiI]

I have thought about this issue, extensively, and have not come up with any answer. Most of these types of philosophical questions do not have an answer or an abolute truth to them.

This is where the fallacy of God lies for me, however. Because many dispute the Big Bang theory due to the fact that something came from nothing. But I see this in the same way. God had to come from something, right? But where did that something come from? How does something create itself? It is quite a paradox.

Well, and now I have actually been insulted more than once for saying this; thinking of God in terms of conflict and contrast doesn't work. God is all paradoxes resolved. A non-dual infinite. Asking what is God is asking what is the Soul, what is Spirit? What is Spirit? What is the infinite? It is beyond conceptual, measured thought.

It is actually a bit of a scary thing if it is exists; but it is not frightening. It never manifests for us if we do not desire to see it. We are safe from it and free to heed it or ignore it as much as we like. There are many approaches to God; the Light, the source, Truth, Consciousness-Force, Truth Consciousness, Higher Power, etc. All of them are valid. God as the Pure, Perfect and Ever Blessed one, in Swami Vivekananda's words, is the same God as the others. God is the Truth-Consciousness out of which all came.

God as an idea is real, just because truth does not contradict itself. The concept of God is deeper than any other because God is the original being, energy, anything.

God is the Witness, the Atman, within the heart of every living being. God is the painter, the canvas, and the painting. God is the supreme author and controler, the witness of all the universe; all the universe is writ upon the reality of the infinite, God is infinitely free and is observing a world still, motionless. Thus is the material world viewed from on high; thus do Angels see us, as beings unable to move, to be. God is that Atman, the Self within all.

[Tyth]

In most religions God created our world, but God isn't part of the world. So God is eternal and unchangeable.
But if we operate Bing Bang theory, God IS the world. Then if our universe changes, God changes too (So we can answer 'yes').

[MarkBastable]

Asking what is God is asking what is the Soul, what is Spirit? What is Spirit? What is the infinite? It is beyond conceptual, measured thought.

Then how, as a finite being with a conceptual and measured intellect, do you manage to conceive that it's beyond the conceptual?

[NikolaiI]

But nothing in the universe is finite. Now you may argue certain things are finite. The number 4, for instance, seems to be finite. There are 4, clearly limited. There are only four. For instance an apple, is single. Single cannot be infinite. Once you eat the apple is gone. It is non-existent.

Wait...
The apple continues to exist. It becomes part of someone's body. Thus the apple is part of them, and they are part of the apple. In fact, the apple was never single to begin with. The apple was the same as the seed, was the same as the mature fruit, had you planted the seeds instead of throwing them out. In fact, the apple was the entire forest.

Nothing is static, but all is fluid. Our terms like "Apple" are false because there's no "thing" called an apple. The Buddhists and Nietzsche both said this (and many others of course), that there is no "thing." I won't use Nietzsche's explanation, but the Buddhists' explanation is that all things are connected. There is no independent arising, and nothing has a separate existence.



"The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes within the souls of people when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Tanka , and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us. This is the real peace, and the others are but reflections of this. The second peace is that which is made between two individuals, and the third is that which is made between two nations. But above all you should understand that there can never be peace between nations until there is known that true peace, which, as I have often said, is within the souls of men."

"It is good to have a reminder of death before us, for it helps us to understand the impermanence of life on this earth, and this understanding may aid us in preparing for our own death. He who is well prepared is he who knows that he is nothing compared with Wakan-Tanka who is everything; then he knows that world which is real."

"This center which is here, but which we know is really everywhere, is Wakan-Tanka."

Of all the created things or beings in the universe, it is the two-legged men alone, who if they purify and humiliate themselves, may become one with — or may know — Wakan-Tanka."

- Black Elk

Since before time and space were,
the Tao is.
It is beyond is and is not.
How do I know this is true?
I look inside myself and see.

- Tao Te Ching

"If a thing loves, it is infinite."

"If the doors of perception were cleansed, all would appear to man as it is, infinite."

- William Blake


We developed a language based on conflict and contrast, but it ends up able to describe nothing, it can only ever reach illusions of illusions, because it speaks of "things," and yet there are no "things," there is only one unity - the entire universe.

Our language speaks of form when there is only a constant flux between form and emptiness. It speaks of form unknowledgable of the fact that form and emptiness are two sides of a unity. Being and non-being are in flux as form and emptiness are. Being isn't ended by non-being. This is essentially true, and it's why our language shouldn't be taken as a guide to what is possible, and what is real. I hope that makes sense.

[coberst]

Our Western philosophical and religious heritage is based upon the mind/body dichotomy. I am convinced that this is so because we have such a strong instinct to live that we cannot abide consciousness of death. For this reason we created an after life that will thus allow us to deny our mortality. It is this repression of our mortality that sets us up for most of the problems that we now encounter. We create religion as a means to get beyond consciousness of death and to create the illusion of life eternal.

[Tyth]

NikolaiI
So all beings are God and God is all beings?

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

Perhaps the Big Bang (Bang) as theory created God. (I choose to reference the Bang theory as it currently stands as the leading candidate ascribing the basis for all that exists.)
If we are to accept all that transcended from the Bang theory as truth, then we must accept God as truth, since it too was a product of the realities extrapolated from the human mind, or souls, as you would have it. Theory must now be considered reality.
This line of thinking has led me to the proverbial question of which came first; the chicken or the egg? Or in this case the Bang or the God?
Although, we must keep in mind that the Bang is still considered a theory and is susceptible to being disproven. If that were to occur, many would be left in turmoil, imploring science to fill the void, perhaps with a black hole.

The Bang is I Am and I Am abides in thee.
As a result of the Bang I find solace in God;
born of science, but through faith a sublime reality.

[dark desire]

Nikolai I

Whoever convinced you, must have been much better than you. :-P It seems like you are compelled to believe what you believe and then you try to compel others to believe what you believe. I hope you see that what you believe is only in your head and not in your experience.

I am a post-structuralist existentialist. For me existence comes first and any explanation of it comes second. And all explanations are equally valid because ultimately all are linguistic constructs.

The question - Did God create God - interested me in that I will find a new narrative. As an idea I think of God less as a creator and more as the origin. In my religion they say - there was nothing and from that nothing something appeared. How it happened has an explanation in dualism, but I do not find that very convincing. I do believe that the universe originated from nothing but I do not have a linguistic explanation for that.

Does someone have a new narrative for this? I believe children can grapple with this in better ways than adults.

[Varenne Rodin]

The most depressing thing in the world is a mosquito sucking on a mummy. Forget it, little friend.

[cafolini]

Did God create God? Yes. Obviouly men did it. If God could have done it, men would have anticipated Him.