What created God?

[BeingaBunny]

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything. I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

That said, if God presides over our universe, outside of what we have here, entropy must be going on somewhere because God obviously came from something somewhere. Or - what? - he just poofed in?

The answer that he is omnipotent and can do whatever the hell he wants just isn't very satisfying or realistic. I mean, if he did create our universe, he must have an objective. Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?

I haven't read the Bible or any other religious texts. I prefer to follow my own beliefs and ideas. But if anyone can give a decent answer to this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[BeingaBunny]

Well I did a bit of research on the old web. The christian concensus seems to be that God cannot be created, and that he doesn't need to be because he is outside of time. That said, he also created the universe and created time inside of it.

If god is outside of time, where there is no before and after, then he could not have created the universe - because creating anything simply indicates before and after, before universe and after universe, which means that god must be affected by time in his "realm" - at least henceforth from creation. The only way God wouldn't be affected by time is if he did not create the universe and god merely exists outside of it, neither creating the other.

Therefore it is impossible that god, from this aspect, created the universe, unless he is affected by time. In which case, where did he come from?

[caesar]

Those are very intriguing and pertinent questions B.B. I've done some thinking in the past on the same line and the only thing that happens is, one question leads to another or many other. Presently, after I confronted the question on entropy going elsewhere, I've let the matter lie. But, I can make a reasonable prediction as to when we (humans) will discover the ultimate answer to the ultimate question. That will be when we discover the beginning and the end on the surface of a sphere.

However, a believer will not be confounded by your question. He will give you the simplest, easiest, answer to you complex question, that god is not subject to the laws of science. After all, he is the creator. He not only created the laws but he has also moulded your reasoning to make you think that the laws of science are inviolable.

To the question, in your second post, on god being outside the realm of time, I think, I have a satisfactory answer. I have an interesting theory to explain, but do not have the time or the inclination to do so. I’ll try to post again as soon as possible. For now, I’ll just say this much. If god is an external-observer of the universe then our measure of time will be inconsequential to him.

[None214]

Who said life had to make sense?

[caesar]

I did......

[Syme]

And you were wrong to do so.

[bhekti]

One problem I have with the idea of God is that, as an answer to life, it doesn't solve anything.

Let's then begin with the idea of no-God...does it solve anything?

I mean, if God created us, then what created God? It solves the question of our own existence and creates the same question of His existence - solving nothing. It merely moves the same question to another subject, which I daresay is rather fallacious.

If God's existence is like our existence then that "God" is a human being, which means not a God. Being created, I think, is not a way to talk about God.

God obviously came from something somewhere.

Then that "God" is just a word.

Why would an omnipotent being have or need an objective?

I'm afraid the question is for you.

I haven't read the Bible or any other religious texts. I prefer to follow my own beliefs and ideas. But if anyone can give a decent answer to this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I hope mine is decent enough. Just a little thought.

[raphien]

the question in question is the source of a surfeit of tales, songs and myths that attempt to provide an answer to the mysteries of 5he origins of God. but the qnswerr in my opinion is the simplest one possible, that is:
the toughest way is the best way. man is programmed to think in a particular manner and to go against it is just not easy. so we believe in what we see sometimes even to the extent that we are fooled by illusions. here we are asked to believe in something so evasive that it strains our very deepest imaginations. so, do we believe or do we keep on questioning.do we strive , in vain, to understand what just cannot be understood or comprehended but what do we get by disbelieving or doubting? or what about the converse? what are we giving up for a life of doubt?

do you believe that there are rules in life that cannot be broken and that these rules are a way of balancing the equation?

[caesar]

And you were wrong to do so.

How so.........?

[Amra]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syme
And you were wrong to do so.



How so.........?

Because Syme said it...

[caesar]

How do you know, Syme's right and I'm wrong?

[ShoutGrace]

How do you know, Syme's right and I'm wrong?

I think it has something to do with the fact that Syme has just four letters in his handle. Amra may feel an inherent bond which may or may not cloud/affect her judgment on this topic.

[caesar]

he, he, he..............

[Lector]

To seek an explanation of the origin of God is more or less an oxymoron. God did not have a begining because He is not a finite being like we are. I realize this is difficult to wrap our minds around and this because the finite (us) is incapable of comprehending the infinite (God). In fact if we could fully understand God, in my oppinion he would be a pretty lame God. I mean if this god was someone whom I could completely understand then that would mean he was not that much higher of a being than me. The simple fact that I am unable to fully comprehend God shows me how much greater He is than me.
Now the next question that comes up is "If you say you can't understand God then you don't have to explain Him, isn't that pretty convienient? Isn't that sort of a cop out?" Hey maybe its convinient for me, I mean if I say you can't explain God then that aleviates me from having to try and explain Him. But I would say its not so much conveniant as it is necessary that I can't explain God, as I said before, I wouldn't want to follow a God I could explain. But I do believe in Him, and rather than me blathering on for pages, if you want me to try and eplain anything more, just shout out and I will give it my best shot, or if you hate me and think I'm an idiot... well just keep that to yourself, lol.

[sHaRp12]

Have you thought that maybe God was never created in the first place.